- Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01107 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 9–14 and 16 under either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “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 the evidence of record, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’950 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“pilot identification information.” In claim 13, limitations [13D]–[13H] similarly recite “pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of these claim terms, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–60; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2–3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“pilot identification information.” In claim 13, limitations [13D]–[13H] similarly recite “pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of these claim terms, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–60; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2–3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,275,950 - Dji Europe B.V. v. Textron Innovations Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2024 · IPR2023-01106 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because DJI did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, and 8 obvious, due to deficient and inconsistent treatment of “pilot identification information.”
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “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 the evidence of record, we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’950 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“inconsistent (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–59), Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply argues “[Patent Owner] offers no[] explicit construction of ‘pilot identification information’ but implicitly interprets the independent claims to require the identical information be used as ‘pilot identification information’ in each limitation” (Prelim. Reply 4). Critically, though, the same is true of the Petition; Petitioner offers no explicit construction of “pilot identification information,” and Petitioner fails to establish or even address whether each limitation requires identical information as the “pilot identification information.” Indeed, even though Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply acknowledges Patent Owner’s inconsistency arguments and the potential for different interpretations of the claim terms, Petitioner chose not to provide a claim interpretation nor otherwise rectify or clarify the positions taken in the Petition with respect to “pilot identification information.” Instead, Petitioner argues only that Patent Owner takes similarly inconsistent positions in its district-court infringement contentions. Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1012, 31, 37, 46). And although Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s claim interpretation in this proceeding is too narrow, Petitioner does not present its own interpretation, much less provide a claim interpretation analysis. Prelim. Reply 1 (arguing “[patent owner] applies a broad interpretation of these terms in the district court to show alleged infringement but in this IPR argues that the plain meaning of the terms is narrow to avoid invalidity”), 5 (referring to Patent Owner’s arguments as a “narrow view of ‘pilot identification information’” that requires a “strict identity interpretation of ‘pilot identification information’ in the ‘transceiver’ and ‘only accessible’ limitations”). Even if Petitioner is correct that Patent Owner arguments treat the patent claims like a nose of wax (Prelim. Reply 1), that cannot alleviate Petitioner’s burden of persuasion and only highlights Petitioner’s failure to provide an interpretation in the face of claim language that is admittedly subject to some range of interpretations. For these reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not carried its burden to show a likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to independent claim 1 as presented in the Warner-Wakutsu-Shavit grounds, nor dependent claims 2– 5, 7, and 8, which include the same deficiencies.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“pilot identification information.” The Petition does not address the scope and meaning of this claim term, but Patent Owner argues (Prelim. Resp. 44– 46, 57–59; Prelim. Sur-Reply 3), and we agree, that Petitioner’s analyses of these limitations are inconsistent and deficient. Highlighting the Petition’s inconsistencies, for limitations [1E] and [1J], Petitioner states “in Shavit . . . the pilot ‘types in or selects his name, the name of the co-pilot if any, and the aircraft’s serial number.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 108). For limitation [1H], however, Petitioner states Shavit’s “user credential for a pilot includes ‘pilot identification information.’” Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 87; Ex. 1003 ¶ 116). Responding to Patent Owner’s arguments that those positions are inconsistent (Prelim. Resp. 44–46, 57–59), Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply argues “[Patent Owner] offers no[] explicit construction of ‘pilot identification information’ but implicitly interprets the independent claims to require the identical information be used as ‘pilot identification information’ in each limitation” (Prelim. Reply 4). Critically, though, the same is true of the Petition; Petitioner offers no explicit construction of “pilot identification information,” and Petitioner fails to establish or even address whether each limitation requires identical information as the “pilot identification information.” Indeed, even though Petitioner’s Preliminary Reply acknowledges Patent Owner’s inconsistency arguments and the potential for different interpretations of the claim terms, Petitioner chose not to provide a claim interpretation nor otherwise rectify or clarify the positions taken in the Petition with respect to “pilot identification information.” Instead, Petitioner argues only that Patent Owner takes similarly inconsistent positions in its district-court infringement contentions. Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1012, 31, 37, 46). And although Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s claim interpretation in this proceeding is too narrow, Petitioner does not present its own interpretation, much less provide a claim interpretation analysis. Prelim. Reply 1 (arguing “[patent owner] applies a broad interpretation of these terms in the district court to show alleged infringement but in this IPR argues that the plain meaning of the terms is narrow to avoid invalidity”), 5 (referring to Patent Owner’s arguments as a “narrow view of ‘pilot identification information’” that requires a “strict identity interpretation of ‘pilot identification information’ in the ‘transceiver’ and ‘only accessible’ limitations”). Even if Petitioner is correct that Patent Owner arguments treat the patent claims like a nose of wax (Prelim. Reply 1), that cannot alleviate Petitioner’s burden of persuasion and only highlights Petitioner’s failure to provide an interpretation in the face of claim language that is admittedly subject to some range of interpretations. For these reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not carried its burden slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,275,950 - PTAB · Feb 7, 2024 · IPR2023-01201 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, or 5 obvious over either asserted reference combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 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 “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). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record before us, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of any challenged claim of the RE ’117 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least,” which renders the statement vague by rendering the scope of ordinary skill unbounded at the top. This level of ordinary skill appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).9 C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“1. “display panel” According to Petitioner, “display panel” means “a flat type screen on which images are displayed, such as a Liquid Crystal Display or Plasma Display Panel.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner improperly limits “display panel” to only a “screen” on which images are displayed. Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner states, however, that “construction of this term does not impact the issues in this proceeding.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that “display panel” includes Liquid Crystal Display and Plasma Display Panel. Therefore, it is not necessary to construe “display panel” for purposes of this decision. “circuit board mounting part” 2. Petitioner proposes a construction for “circuit board mounting part” which appears in each of claims 1, 2, and 5. Pet. 19–25. Our decision, however, does not depend on any construction of the term “circuit board mounting part.” Thus, it is not necessary to construe this term.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“disclosed in Figure 1, especially since “the text of the ’117 patent does not limit the entry/exit of the cooling paths.” Prelim. Reply 2. However, given that the goal of the RE ’117 patent is to avoid inter-heating by providing separate cooling fluid paths, as discussed above, it is not consistent with the Specification to have mixing of the two cooling fluid paths within the panel display device. We are not reading an extraneous limitation from the Specification into the claim. Rather, we are interpreting the limitation “separated from each other” in light of the Specification, which is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2023 · IPR2022-01002 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 12–20 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Paulraj and Heath because the combination did not teach or suggest the claimed plurality of antennas.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas—one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas—one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We determine these arguments are not grounded in or supported by the Petition or within the scope of reasonable reply arguments. Nothing in the Petition maps any limitations of the challenged claims to alleged teachings in Paulraj of antennas that perform both transmission and reception. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner (Sur-Reply, 7) that this argument in Petitioner’s Reply would improperly recast Petitioner’s reliance on Paulraj and is therefore untimely. Moreover, we agree with Dr. Cooklev (Ex. 2004 ¶ 37) that Paulraj is consistent in describing separate transmit units and receive units throughout its disclosure, and without an appropriate mapping of Paulraj’s alleged teachings of transmit/receive antennas to the challenged claims in the Petition, Petitioner has not carried its burden to show unpatentability under such a theory, even if it were timely.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,191,083 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,191,083 - Microsoft Corporation v. Throughputer, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 9, 2023 · IPR2023-00852 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan was a prior art printed publication, defeating the asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date” of the ’948 patent (i.e., November 4, 2011). Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (emphasis added). As a result, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See id. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claims 1–15 would have been obvious over the combination of Nollet, Tuan, and Seo. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review on the asserted ground as to any of the challenged claims. IV. ORDER Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Importantly, Ms. Munford’s testimony does not indicate that an ordinary artisan could have located Tuan with reasonable diligence. We additionally find that Ms. Munford’s conclusory assertion that Tuan “was made available to the public” in October 2009 (Ex. 1012 ¶ 11; see also Ex. 1015 ¶ 9) is insufficient to establish public accessibility. As our reviewing court has explained, it is “critical” that there be “some evidence that a person of ordinary skill could have reasonably found” the reference. Samsung, 929 F.3d at 1369; see also id. at 1372 (stating that a reference “is not publicly accessible if the only people who know how to find it are the ones who created it”). In other words, even assuming that Ms. Munford establishes Tuan was technically available to the public in October 2009, her testimony fails to support a finding that an ordinary artisan could have located Tuan with reasonable diligence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot reached
“For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner fails to “identify, with particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date” of the ’948 patent (i.e., November 4, 2011). Hulu, Paper 29 at 13 (emphasis added). As a result, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Tuan qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See id. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claims 1–15 would have been obvious over the combination of Nollet, Tuan, and Seo.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a combination of a Bachelor’s Degree (or a similar Master’s Degree, or higher degree) in an academic area emphasizing computer science, or a related field, and two or more years of work experience with parallel processing technologies.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Preliminary Response. On the present record, we are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’948 patent (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 21), and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,150,948 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00981 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 8–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 not unpatentable because neither asserted obviousness ground accounted for the required dynamic configuration without user intervention.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“declaration (Ex. 2031) and asserts that Dr. Cooklev’s declaration should be accorded little to no weight. Reply 13–14. For reasons discussed below, we are unpersuaded that Dr. Cooklev’s declaration should be accorded little to no weight. First, Petitioner asserts: “Dr. Cooklev’s declaration merely repeats the same arguments of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Indeed, Dr. Cooklev even testified in deposition: ‘ultimately counsel formulated my opinions.’” Reply 13 (quoting Ex. 1065, 14:1–3). We are not persuaded that the testimony of Dr. Cooklev does not reflect the opinion of Dr. Cooklev such that it constitutes mere attorney argument. With respect to the above-noted testimony, Dr. Cooklev explained: THE WITNESS: Well, maybe I misspoke. To begin with, these are my opinions. And I also testified, I believe, that I had communicated my opinions to counsel. Ultimately, counsel helped format those opinions, I mean put them in a format that is appropriate. So maybe that is the – that’s how I would clarify my – the answer that I gave earlier in the morning. Ex. 1065, 96:5–14. Dr. Cooklev further explained: “These opinions do not come from counsel. They come from me.” Id. at 96:20–21.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[a] Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in December of 1996 would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of networking and wireless devices. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petition’s definition of level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kotzin (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22) and is consistent with the level reflected in the ’936 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“As Patent Owner has noted (PO Resp. 16), the Specification of the ’936 patent repeatedly and consistently states that the mobile device is able to “switch itself” or “switches itself.” Ex. 1001, 5:1–4, 8:9–12, 8:36–39. The Specification of the ’936 patent also describes that the device “can decide the preferred mode to be in.” Id. at 4:8–9 (emphasis added). The Specification of the ’936 patent further states that the device “is dynamically software reconfigurable for the various environments.” Id. at 2:35–36 (emphasis added). In contrast, there is not any description, none, in the Specification of the ’936 patent of the user of the device issuing a command to the device at the time of making a functional switch to cause the device to switch function.11 In light of such disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that a fundamental aspect of the invention of the ’936 patent is that dynamic configuration occurs without user intervention, i.e., without user command at the time of the change in configuration. PO Resp. 13. In our view, it is not consistent with the Specification of the ’936 patent to read “dynamically configurable” as encompassing manual reconfiguration by user intervention, i.e., user command at the time of reconfiguring. Reading “dynamically configurable” as encompassing manual reconfiguration by user intervention, i.e., user command at the time of reconfiguring, is also contrary to the prosecution history of the ’936 patent.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We have construed “dynamically configurable” as “configurable when and as needed and in real time, without the need for user intervention,” and explained that “without the need for user intervention” means absent user command at the time of dynamic configuring. See Section II.C.2., supra. Based on that construction, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that Regnier dynamically configures its device from a first function to a second function, as Petitioner asserts. As explained by Petitioner, Regnier’s device reconfigures its functionality in response to user selection of the desired application program, to provide the functionality corresponding to the user selected application program. Pet. 51–52. Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s rationale “relies on manual, user- initiated conversions.” PO Resp. 36. Patent Owner explains: Petitioners argue that Rautiola in view of Regnier “describes that the client device dynamically converts between functions by downloading a client portion of an application and converting between different application services that are allowed by a server on a dynamic basis and chosen dynamically by a user.” Pet. 48. These allegations combine two distinct parts: (1) providing a client portion of an application for download; and (2) determining whether to allow the client device to use a different application service each time the client requests converting from a first to second application. Ex. 2031, ¶74. According to Petitioners’ own arguments, both parts depend on manual user requests. For providing a client portion, the Petition states that “Regnier teaches that “client portion 291” 130 upon a request from the user.” Pet. 49 (quoting Ex. 1006, 5:52-5:54) (emphasis added). The Petition also repeatedly acknowledges that a user request initiates Regnier’s process to determine whether to allow a client device to use an application. Id., 49 (alleging that Regnier’s server maintains user profiles that determines whether users can execute applications), id., 51-52 (alleging that “Regnier further explains that each time a user selects an application . . . ”); id., 53 (alleging the server’s resource manager allows “users to choose dynamically among shared resources”). PO Resp. 36–37. Patent Owner further notes that Petitioner also cites to passages from Regnier that describe updating menu items in a spreadsheet for use by an application. Id. at 37 (citing Pet. 51). In that regard, Patent Owner explains:” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 8,472,936 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,472,936 - Vivint, Inc. v. SB IP Holdings LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00812 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, and 15–20 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Vaios and Menard; the Board did not reach the Klein-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“in the art are similar and any differences are immaterial to the outcome of this case. Id.; Ex. 1031, 13:4–10; 14:14–21. We apply Patent Owner’s proposal, however, because it includes an upper limit of four years of experience, and also provides that graduate education could substitute for professional experience or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education in addition to similar qualifications as Petitioner proposes. In addition, we find that Patent Owner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the content of the applied prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art in this decision. C.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not demonstrated that Petitioner committed the violation it asserts, nor has Patent Owner shown that the circumstances here warrant imposing the severe consequence of disregarding Petitioner’s expert’s declaration. Attorney argument alone is not evidence that could support such an assertion. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017). F.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that it disputes Petitioner’s claim constructions that it allegedly made for its anticipation and obviousness arguments. However, Patent Owner does not identify what those allegedly disputed claim terms are nor what meanings should be ascribed to them. As no specific controversy over claim language has been identified to us, we decline to construe any claim term and instead will apply the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in this decision. See Nidec, Wellman, Vivid Techs., supra. D.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 8,154,581 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,154,581 - Cerebras Systems Inc. v. Rex Computing, IncNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 11, 2023 · IPR2022-00741 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations failed to teach required router retention, scratchpad memory, or optimal square-versus-linear tile assignment limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’975 patent was filed. Pet. 6. Relying upon the Conte Declaration, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of microprocessor design or a similar field . . . and more experience would compensate for less formal education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). Patent Owner applies this 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. assessment in its Response. Resp. 8. Based on the fully developed record, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner because it is supported by the Conte Declaration and is consistent with the ’975 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” 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)). We determine that no constructions are required for the above-disputed terms. slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“above-described manner to store data. But Dr. Conte’s direct testimony does not address other statements in the ’975 patent specification that describe the scratchpad memory as an alternative to a cache. See Ex. 1001, 8:27–33 (“each of the cores includes a scratchpad memory . . . . As a result, conventional L-level caches may not be used in the architecture 299 because the scratchpad memories . . . provide data storage”); see also id. at 3:21–4:35 (describing drawbacks of prior art architectures that rely on caches), 5:14–20 (stating that each core may include a scratchpad memory instead of a cache). As Dr. Bagherzadeh stated, “Dr. Conte never reconciled [his] opinion with the ’975 Patent’s disclosure, which, as I described, connects the concept of using a scratchpad memory to a cache-less architecture.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 92 (citing Ex. 1001 Fig. 3). Dr. Conte’s deposition testimony did not clarify this issue, stating that the issue of cacheless architecture was “disconnected” from whether a microprocessor has a scratchpad. Ex. 2002, 40:10–15. The ’975 patent specification’s description of a scratchpad memory module as an alternative to cache memory is evidence that an ordinary artisan, upon reading the entirety of the ’975 patent, would not have considered the scope of the claimed scratchpad memory to include a cache memory. Dr. Conte has relied upon the ’975 patent specification for general properties seemingly common to both caches and scratchpad memory, but has not explained why the ’975 patent specification’s statements distinguishing a scratchpad memory from a cache should not limit the scope of the claimed “scratchpad memory.” As a result, Dr. Conte’s testimony does not significantly assist in construing “scratchpad memory” in any manner relevant to the pertinent issue; i.e., whether it may be taught by a prior art cache memory.” slip op. at 30
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“data “occurs in the router’s input buffer” (Pet. Reply 10 (emphasis added)), but Petitioner does not support this assertion with analysis or evidence. To the contrary, Petitioner has clarified that the “input” on which words wait is “the input of the processor,” not the router. Pet. Reply 12. Claim 1 requires that a router must be operable to retain such data (limitation [1g]), and that the processor cores are distinct from the routers (limitation [1a]). Thus, to the extent that MIT2002 teaches data waiting at the input of the processor, Petitioner has not pointed to evidence or reasoning persuasively showing that the claimed router is operable to retain a data packet, even if a buffer at the input of the processor is able to do so. Instead, Petitioner primarily relies on our preliminary determination, and on Patent Owner’s lack of argument to the contrary. Id. at 11–12. Neither of these act to satisfy Petitioner’s burden to show that MIT2002, in combination with the other applied references, teaches a router operable to retain data packets in the event of a traffic condition. Consequently, we are not persuaded that retention of data in the Raw system occurs at the router’s input buffer. For the above described reasons, we determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that the combined teachings of the applied references of this ground teach or suggest the “each router is operable to retain a data packet in the event of a traffic condition” limitation of [1g]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 10,355,975 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,355,975 - Apple Inc. v. Togail Technologies, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 14, 2023 · IPR2023-00720 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Apple did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Furthermore, in assessing the prior art, the Board must consider whether a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention. Nuvasive, 842 F.3d at 1381. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“‘transmitting a second SI request message to the BS only when . . . the prohibit timer expires.’” Pet. 26. This argument that the limitation is obvious is conclusory. The Ding Declaration is repetitive of the Petition without any additional support cited for the conclusions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1007, 2). We give the Ding Declaration little weight where it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential). We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner’s citations to Oppo show that the SI can be sent regardless of whether or not the timer has expired. For example, the table above shows that a second SI request transmission event may occur without the prohibit timer having expired. Specifically, there is a check as to whether the SI request is “available” or “acknowledged,” and if so, the prohibit timer is stopped, and thus would not run to expiration. See Ex. 1007, table (Proposal 4). Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the requested SI having been “acknowledged” is the same as the requested SI” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“‘transmitting a second SI request message to the BS only when . . . the prohibit timer expires.’” Pet. 26. This argument that the limitation is obvious is conclusory. The Ding Declaration is repetitive of the Petition without any additional support cited for the conclusions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 59 (citing Ex. 1007, 2). We give the Ding Declaration little weight where it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s unsupported, conclusory assertions without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15–17 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“IV. PATENTABILITY ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’502 patent, as of April 2, 2018, would have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the cellular telecommunications arts that are pertinent to the ’502 patent. That person would have at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field from an accredited program and one year of relevant experience in mobile communications or wireless networks. A Ph.D. degree in a relevant field may substitute for some work experience.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,791,502 - PTAB · Jul 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00483 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
The Board cancelled original claims 1–18 and 20–22, but denied substitute claims 23–43 for lack of written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“37 C.F.R. §§ 42.121(b)(1) and (2). The patent owner bears the burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a motion to amend complies with these requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). “[T]he motion [to amend] must set forth written description support for each proposed substitute claim as a whole, and not just the features added by the amendment.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15, 8 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). B. Lack of Written Description Support” slip op. at 9
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot shown unpatentable
“the ’556 application does not provide written description support for the proposed substitute claims. For limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of respective independent proposed claims 23, 30, and 37, Patent Owner points to paragraphs 11, 37, 60, 78, 83–85, 90, 109–113, 119–130, 150, and Figure 11 of the ’556 application as providing written description support. MTA 6–7, 10, 14–15; Reply 2–3. Reviewing these paragraphs, however, we find no description of the subject matter recited in limitation 23e, which recites “responsive to determining that the [first] variation of the soft information change how the hard information is displayed at the client device, determine a second variation of the soft information.” Nor do we find in those passages written description of the subject matter recited in the similar language of limitations 30e and 37e. Specifically, paragraphs 11 and 37 of the ’556 application address prediction of the response message expected from the client device (similar to limitations 23h–23j, 30h–30j, and 37h–37j, which were added in the MTA to the original claims of the ’759 patent). Paragraphs 60, 78, 83, and 84 describe specific ways to vary soft messaging to establish secondary communications between a server and a client device to detect the presence of a malicious application. Paragraph 85 describes a priori recording of soft information variations to create large sets of composite (hard and soft) messages to be transmitted together. Paragraph 85 also states that, alternatively, the hard and soft messages may be transmitted separately. Paragraph 90 mentions use of “spaghetti” code and soft formatting to make it difficult for malicious applications to alter, replace, or counterfeit in real time. Paragraphs 109 to 113 mention various ways to vary soft information and soft messaging, such as varying or selecting different characters sets, font type, color, or weight, and point sizes from session to session, and predicting the response from the client device to compare with the actual response. Paragraphs 119 to 125 and Figure 11 address soft messaging using un-rendered page elements, and paragraphs 126 to 130 describe soft messaging using graphical elements. Paragraph 150 discusses identifying compatible soft information and selecting a variation of soft information to prevent malicious applications from reverse engineering the soft messaging used to validate communications. None of these disclosures describe the “trial and error” or “testing” approach of limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e in which, responsive to determining that a first variation of the soft information changes how the hard information is displayed at the client device, the security processor creates a second variation of soft information (which is included in the message to the client device if it does not vary how the hard information is displayed—see limitations 23f–23g, 30f–30g, and 37f–37g) to prevent a malicious application from interacting with the hard information. Accordingly, Patent Owner fails to meet its burden to show that limitations 23e, 30e, and 37e of independent proposed substitute claims 23, 30, and 37, as presented in the Motion to Amend, have written description support in the ’556 application, as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(b)(2).” slip op. at 11
§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,230,759
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.