- PTAB · Sep 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00582 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 14–16, and 19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood Valve would show at least one claim unpatentable based on Pratt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)). A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6, Prelim. Resp. 21. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’738 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–61. Although we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other, we adopt Valve’s proposed level of skill for this Decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Valve’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In an IPR, we construe a patent claim “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). This generally includes “construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term “is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent,” and “as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313, 1321. Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms explicitly. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree that, for the purpose of institution, we do not need to adopt explicit constructions for any claim terms. To the extent that the meaning of claim language is disputed, we discuss it below in the context of the prior art. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show that a claim is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the challenging party must demonstrate that each and every claim element, arranged as recited in the claim, is found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We consider prior art references “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,738 - PTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00833 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 over all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious, and granted ZEPP’s motion to join the Samsung IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“Although ZEPP is correct that a General Plastic analysis is generally only applicable when the same party files multiple petitions challenging the same patent, the Board has extended General Plastic factor 1 to include a third-party subsequent petitioner who has a “significant relationship” with the prior petitioner, as discussed below. 2. No Significant Relationship between ZEPP and Samsung In Valve Corporation, the Board extended the General Plastic analysis to situations in which a subsequent petition is filed by a different petitioner. Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019-00062, paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (hereinafter “Valve”). Specifically, the two petitioners in Valve were co-defendants in a District Court litigation, had a licensing relationship concerning a product, and were accused of infringing based on the same product. Valve, slip op. at 9–10. The Board considered whether there was a sufficiently “significant relationship” between the two different parties filing the two petitions that the second petitioner should be regarded as the same petitioner under General Plastic factor 1. Valve, slip op. at 2, 10 (emphasis added). Here, Patent Owner asks the Board to exercise its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution under General Plastic (Opp. 3–6). But Patent Owner has not established under General Plastic factor 1 that ZEPP itself (or its privy) has filed multiple “follow-on” petitions challenging the same patent as challenged previously in an inter partes review. Nor has Patent Owner established, also under General Plastic factor 1, that ZEPP (as the subsequent petitioner) and Samsung, have a significant relationship, in the sense contemplated by Valve (i.e., as co-defendants accused of infringing based upon the same product). Valve at 9–10.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that (1) ZEPP has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’033 patent; and (2) ZEPP has satisfied the threshold requirement to warrant joinder.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“On this record, we find ZEPP has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate, at least because, as set forth above, the Petition here: (1) is substantively identical to the petition filed in the Samsung IPR; (2) contains the same grounds for the same claims based upon the same evidence; and, (3) relies upon the same Declaration of Dr. Benjamin B. Bederson, Ph.D. See Mot. for Joinder 1 (“same expert declarations”); Ex. 1002. ZEPP represents that it will assume “a silent participant role.” Mot. for Joinder 1. ZEPP also represents that it “merely seeks to join an ongoing proceeding as an understudy.” Reply 6 (citing Mot. for Joinder 6). For what constitutes an “understudy role,” see footnote 8, supra. And ZEPP clarifies that it “will not take an active role in the inter partes review proceeding unless the Samsung Petitioner ceases to participate in the instituted IPR.” Mot. for Joinder 1. ZEPP also “does not request any schedule changes” such that “the Board will be able to timely issue a final written decision.” Reply 6–7. On this record, we find ZEPP has satisfied the requirements for joinder, as described above, and has demonstrated that joinder will not unduly complicate or delay the Samsung IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.1(b) (providing for “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding” (emphases added)). We, therefore, grant ZEPP’s Motion for Joinder and, as a result, join ZEPP as a party to the Samsung IPR.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,588,033 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 15–20 based on the asserted obviousness grounds over Hankins alone and Hankins with Kommula.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“ordinary and customary meaning. 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b). We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes any term for claim construction. Petitioner provides discussions of the “State of the Art” for the terms “communication tunnels” and “selection of communication paths by controller.” Pet. 15–18. The term “tunnel” appears in challenged independent claim 15. The term “selection of communication paths by controller” does not appear in the challenged claims. On this record, we are not directed to any claim construction issue. Unless otherwise indicated in this Decision, we do not need to construe any claim term at this time, and we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“been familiar with using cloud based resources offered on top of regular Internet connections to provide virtual networks and the formation of tunnels and the associated protocols as demonstrated by the prior art references and description in the [Petition].” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 55; Pet. 15–18). Petitioner further alleges a person of ordinary skill in the art would have gained knowledge of these concepts through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science and two years of experience; or by obtaining a Master’s degree in computer science, but having only one year of experience; or by having no formal education but experience in storage systems of at least four years. Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, Petitioner’s first argument is sufficient for us to preliminarily determine “the path between controller 350 and tunnel server 360” is a tunnel. Petitioner sufficiently shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood what constitutes a tunnel as including the path described in the Petition. Specifically, the Petition cites evidence, quoted by Patent Owner, showing” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - PTAB · Sep 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00497 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cisco would prevail on the challenged obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“(“end-to-end tunnels” of limitation 1.3). As discussed below, even accepting that Chen does not teach the “end-to-end tunnels” of limitation 1.3, Hankins is not “the same or substantially the same” as Chen. General statements made by Patent Owner about what allegedly is “substantially the same” are not sufficient to show that Hankins is substantially similar to Chen. Petitioner relies on Hankins as teaching limitation 1.3 and the Examiner relied on Chen as teaching the ‘communication path’ recited in claim 1 prior to being amended to include limitation 1.3. Compare Ex. 1002, 150 (arguing patentability based on amendment to application claim 1) and Pet. 32 (arguing limitation 1.3 taught by Hankins). The question is not whether both references are relied on for the same limitation, but instead whether the teachings of the two references are the “same or substantially the same.” See Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10 (factors (a), (b), (d)). In this case, Patent Owner has not shown substantial similarity between the two references.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner alleges a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of techniques for transmitting data via a VPN and establishing tunneling links. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have gained knowledge of these concepts through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science and four years of experience; or by obtaining a Master’s degree in computer science, but having only one to two years of experience; or by having no formal education but experience in storage systems of at least eight years. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the testimony of Dr. Reddy and is consistent with the ’505 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The ’505 patent does not define “end-to-end tunnels.” The ’505 patent explains that “tunnels” link one LAN to another through routers or equivalent edge devices. Ex. 1001, 2:48–50. The ’505 patent further explains that communication paths between endpoint devices “may comprise 7 Iyer et al., US 2010/0275017 A1, published October 28, 2010 (Ex. 1007, “Iyer”). one or more intermediate tunnels connecting each endpoint device to one or more intermediate access point servers and one or more control servers.” Id. at 4:5–8. End point devices may be connected “with one or more multiple SRV_AP servers through one or more multiple concurrent tunnels.” Id. at 20:18–20. The description of the ’505 patent is consistent with Petitioner’s “State of the Art” as it relates to “tunnels.” Patent Owner’s reliance on Figures 32 and 33 is an impermissible reading of limitations from the specification into the claims. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted “in view of the specification” without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) (internal quotations and citation omitted). We preliminarily determine that the term “end-to-end tunnels” means communication paths connecting endpoint devices to one or more intermediate access point servers and one or more control servers. Ex. 1001, 4:5–8. Stated differently, the “end-to-end tunnels” connecting endpoint devices may include intermediate access point servers or control servers.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,630,505 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable over Banerjee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Immersion argues that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because there is a district court case involving the ’067 patent. Prelim. Resp. 50–56 (discussing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)). However, the co- 1 Banerjee et al., US 2017/0108930 A1, published Apr. 20, 2017 (Ex. 1011). 2 Meglan et al., US 2012/0045742 A1, published Feb. 23, 2012 (Ex. 1012). 3 Rogers et al., US 2017/0354864 A1, published Dec. 14, 2017 (Ex. 1010). pending district court litigation has been stayed. Ex. 2004, 8. In Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00478, Paper 11 at 9–18 (PTAB July 25, 2024), the Board addressed nearly exactly the same arguments and issues raised by Immersion here. We adopt and incorporate the reasoning in that case as our own. In short, the stay obviates concerns over efficiency and duplicity of efforts raised in Fintiv. See, e.g., Fintiv at 6 (“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.”). Therefore, we do not discretionarily deny the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that formal education could substitute for practical experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6, Prelim. Resp. 12. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially similar, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appears to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. At this stage, we discern no difference in the outcome of this decision from choosing one over the other. We adopt Valve’s proposed level of skill for this decision because it is sufficiently persuasive to meet Valve’s “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms explicitly. Pet. 7–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:1–4, 5:60–62; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77– 80; Ex. 1006, 4–5); Prelim. Resp. 13. We agree that, for the purpose of institution, we do not need to adopt explicit constructions for any claim terms. To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is disputed, we discuss it below in the context of the prior art. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(g) Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that Valve has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Banerjee discloses all the limitations of claim 1, or at least that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason, in view of Banerjee, to combine features, including a sensor, as recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that Valve is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under §§ 102 or 103 based on Banerjee. 3. Other Claims Because Valve has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to claim 1 as discussed above, we will institute on all claims and all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Astala and Shahoian and over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because there is a district court case involving the ’507 patent. Prelim. Resp. 43–49 (discussing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”)). However, the co-pending district court litigation has been stayed. Ex. 2004, 8. In Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00478, Paper 11 at 9–18 (PTAB July 25, 2024), the Board was faced with substantially similar arguments and issues raised by Patent Owner here; we adopt and incorporate the reasoning in that case as our own. In short, the stay obviates concerns over efficiency and duplicity of efforts raised in Fintiv. See, e.g., Fintiv at 6 (“[a] district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts”). Therefore, we do not discretionarily deny the Petition.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be 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.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’507 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Both proposed levels of skill appear to be substantially similar and reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’507 patent and asserted prior art. At this time, we would discern no difference in outcome from choosing one over the other. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision because it appears to be a reasonable definition and Petitioner bears only a “reasonable likelihood” burden at institution. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“time interval has elapsed.” Prelim. Resp. 18. We disagree that the claims preclude any particular combination of events, so long as the three conditions are satisfied in the process of determining of a press. The claim does not specify or limit the ways in which the three conditions need to be satisfied to determine a press, and Patent Owner offers no claim construction analysis that would so limit the claims. In sum, we agree with Petitioner at this stage that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already states: that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three claimed conditions. Claim 1 does not set out any further requirements. Thus, we do not see the need to construe the claim beyond its plain language. We do not explicitly construe any terms in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claims. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms. . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507 - PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by or obvious over Rosenberg.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner’s analysis persuasively demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success of showing that the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable. That Rosenberg varies, or modulates, its haptic effect based on the input signal, and specifically the degree to which the input signal represents a value close to a target value, persuades us on this record that Rosenberg describes the recited “modulating” limitation. On whole, reviewing the Petition and the evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by, or would have been obvious in view of, Rosenberg.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In our view, on this record, the first construction is too narrow. It adds limitations from the specification that are not found in the claims, namely, the term “continuous” or “continuously.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 843–44 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[A] claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the specification unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim’s scope with words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). There is no requirement that the claims must recite all the features of the specification, and we are not persuaded on this record that the claim requires this absent word. The second potential construction offered by Petitioner states that it “would not require the ‘new input’ mapping to the modulated haptic signal to be received immediately after earlier input that was mapped to a haptic signal.” Pet. 22. Petitioner states that the second construction would cover situations where an input sensor is mapped to a haptic signal but later new inputs are not mapped to a haptic signal, and then even later new sensor input is mapped to a haptic signal. Id. Petitioner does not provide further explanation, and it is not clear to us on this record what the construction would be. Instead, the second potential construction merely seems to be an example of a situation in which Petitioner asserts the claim limitation would be met. In sum, we do not adopt either of Petitioner’s proposed constructions. We do not offer our own construction at this time, however, because we believe that construing the claim limitation is unnecessary for the purpose of institution. Instead, we will focus on the plain language itself, “modulating the haptic signal when new input is received,” when reviewing Petitioner’s prior art grounds. We do not explicitly construe any terms in this Decision at this time” slip op. at 7
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00330 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–19 on all four asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Analysis The Director of the USPTO has proscribed an interim procedure for discretionary denials in AIA post-grant proceedings with parallel district court litigation. See Ex. 1025, Memorandum to Members of the PTAB from Director Vidal, dated June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”). In the Memorandum, the Director states that “[w]hen a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition, it mitigates concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between district court and the PTAB.” Id. at 7. Further, when such a stipulation is provided, “the grounds the PTAB resolves will differ from those present in the parallel district court litigation” and “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR.” Id. In this case, Petitioner provides a stipulation that falls within the contours of the Memorandum. Ex. 1048, 1. Petitioner’s stipulation meets the requirements of a stipulation pursuant to Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A), and, therefore, the Director’s Memorandum governs our determination here. For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the Director’s Memorandum, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the parallel district court litigation.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Preliminary Reply, and the Preliminary Sur-reply as well as all supporting evidence, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenge of at least one claim of the ’656 patent as unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’656 patent on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential), the Board accorded “little weight” to declaration testimony that contains a verbatim restatement of a petition’s arguments without additional supporting evidence or reasoning. In Xerox, the Board held that the critical inquiry is whether a declaration is conclusory and unsupported and whether it discloses underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based. Xerox, Paper 9 at 15 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”)); see also RightQuestion, LLC, Paper 17 at 23 (“Petitioner’s declarant makes these same statements verbatim, without more, and with no additional citations to evidence.”). Patent Owner ignores Dr. Jones’s testimony summarizing the relevant disclosures from Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese on which he relies to form his opinions. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–46. Patent Owner also ignores Dr. Jones’s testimony of the specific basis for his opinion that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–68. This testimony contains specific detailed citations to the references in support of Dr. Jones’s opinions. We, thus, find that Dr. Jones’s testimony in support of the Petition, taken as a whole, is supported sufficiently with evidence and technical reasoning at this stage of the proceeding. Consequently, we do not give his testimony little to no weight because portions of it are repeated in the Petition. ii.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Although Stone does not explicitly mention the word “fraud,” it discloses that user device 408 may include user identifiers 418 that “may include attributes related to the user such as . . . a user name, password, photograph image, biometric id.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 45. Dr. Jones testifies that “Stone’s biometric information/‘biometric id’ is typically received and stored on user device 404 during an enrollment/registration process” and “is used for subsequent comparison with the later captured data to provide an authentication decision for a transaction request.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 9; Ex. 1021, Abst.; Ex. 1023, 8:3–9:39). Patent Owner’s attorney argument that Stone does not mention fraud or biometric authentication ignores the cited disclosure in Stone and Dr. Jones’s testimony which is sufficiently supported by the references he cites. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that Stone does not discuss techniques for preventing fraud is undercut by its acknowledgement that Stone discloses “authentication of the user[] by the payment server where the user’s account information is stored.” Prelim. Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 46). Patent Owner’s argument that Hoyos is not concerned with improving an electronic display or a user’s experience (Prelim. Resp. 36) is unavailing because it fails to address Petitioner’s proposed combination. Petitioner does not rely on Hoyos to improve an electronic display or the user experience but proposes modifying Stone by “implement[ing] Hoyos’ spoofing resistant biometric authentication for fraud detection” with the resulting benefit of “improved deterrent against attempted fraudulent transactions and decreased rejection of valid customers.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). With respect to adding Varghese to the combination of Stone and Hoyos, Patent Owner’s argument is that Petitioner “fails to explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have combined location authentication mentioned in Varghese with Hoyos’s biometric authentication techniques.” Prelim. Resp. 37. Patent Owner, however, does not address Petitioner’s assertions that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented Varghese’s multifactor real-time authentication including location authentication “for improved security” and the other alleged benefits for doing so stated in the Petition. Pet. 22.” slip op. at 43
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,656 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00329 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12–15, 17, and 20–23 on all Petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aDenied
“determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Hence, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all challenges included in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (noting that the language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) “indicates a binary choice— either institute review or don’t”); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute as requiring “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Additionally, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 90
Discretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,972,010 - Apple Inc. v. Carbyne Biometrics, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00331 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 based on a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, applying all challenges in the Petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to institute an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review only if “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aOther
“V. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Hence, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims on all challenges included in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018) (noting that the language of 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) “indicates a binary choice— either institute review or don’t”); PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute as requiring “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Additionally, we decline to exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution.” slip op. at 95
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artInstituted
“4. WHETHER PETITIONER ESTABLISHES A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT STONE IS ANALOGOUS ART” slip op. at 38
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,526,886
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.