- PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01235 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3, 6–11, and 14–16 on all proposed grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the §103 ground over Mañosa and Patel.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016), 815 F.3d at 1363 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedPrinted publication not establishedMixed
“[T]here is no presumption in favor of institution or in favor of finding a reference to be a printed publication under § 42.108(c) or any other authority. . . . [T]he burden is on the petitioner to identify with particularity evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“May” expresses a possibility. The Specification reflects this interpretation of “may” when it states that “[i]n one embodiment, the organic material is not lyotropic. Thus, the organic material may not be a phospholipid.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28 (emphasis added). One of ordinary skill would understand from this that the organic material “may not be” a phospholipid if the organic material is not lyotropic. It follows that if the organic material is lyotropic, then the organic material may be a phospholipid. Reading the statement “[t]he organic material may not be . . . a phospholipid” (id. at 8:59–63) in light of the earlier stated possibility that the organic material may be a phospholipid if the organic material is lyotropic, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret “may not be” as excluding phospholipids under some conditions, not under all conditions. Taking the Specification’s discussion about phospholipids as exemplifying the permissive nature of the word “may,” we are unpersuaded that in stating that “[t]he organic material may not be [PMMA], a polyvinylidene difluoride-containing polymer, such as [PVDF] or PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, or a phospholipid, such as [DHPE]’” (Ex. 1001, 8:59–63), the specification “contains a clear and unmistakable disavowal of the compounds PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE” and “disclaims the listed compounds” from the “organic material” of the claims under all conditions, as Patent Owner argues. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Moreover, the claims themselves limit the “organic material” only to the extent that it is “barocaloric cooling or heating agent” and can perform in the manner claimed. See Ex. 1001, claim 1, supra. As broadly worded, the claims do not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE per se from the group of organic materials employed by the claimed method. Adopting Patent Owner’s construction would impermissibly import a limitation (i.e., not exclude PMMA, PVDF, PVDF-TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE) into the claims. For the reasons stated, at this stage of the proceeding, we agree with Petitioner’s broad construction of “organic material.” We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction whereby PMMA, PVDF, PVDF- TrFE-CTFE, and DHPE are excluded from the scope of the claim term “organic material.” The parties are invited to address this issue further during trial, if desired. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner shows that (a) Mañosa (i.e., inorganic compounds such as Ni-Mn-In, Gd5Si2Ge2, and La-Fe-Co-Si) and (b) Patel (i.e., PVDF-TrFE- CTFE) teach materials exhibiting inverse BCEs. Pet. 59 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1007, pages 4–8; Ex. 1009, 1, 4–5; Ex. 1004 ¶ 108). In our view, at this stage, Petitioner sufficiently shows (via the five reasons listed supra) why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the barocaloric cooling or heating agent of Patel for that taught in Mañosa, thereby reaching the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success. Cf. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (U.S., 2007) (“The Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”)” slip op. at 32
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,230,656 - BMW Of North America, LLC / Robert Bosch LLC et al. v. Foras Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 18, 2025 · IPR2023-01373 · APJ Carl W Whitehead Jr · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 13–22 are unpatentable as obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen because the combination teaches determining whether lockstep is recoverable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 8–9. In its Response, Patent Owner does not take exception to our definition. See PO Resp. 3. However, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience with computer architecture design.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art are not meaningfully distinguishable from one another. Accordingly, we do not see the need to modify our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. However, our findings would not change even under Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are satisfied that Mr. Jones qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 2008, 1 (“Summary” including “embedded systems including both software and hardware”, “Representative Design Work” including, e.g., “Design and implement multiple device drivers for complex Integrated circuits,” “Design of a highly fault tolerant, distributed data acquisition and control, system for a rebreather . . . system architecture, hardware design and layout, embedded firmware, documentation,” “hardware and firmware design,” “[h]ardware and firmware for controlling a unique, battery powered diesel burner…”), 2–3 (list of Publications). We are also satisfied that Mr. Jones’ degree in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering is sufficiently “equivalent” to a degree in Computer Engineering or Computer Science. See PO Sur-reply 11. We decline to give Mr. Jones’ declaration no weight for several additional reasons. One, Petitioner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude Mr. Jones’ declaration, nor has Petitioner filed an objection. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also Hearing Tr. 32, 33:15–34:8. Two, we are afforded broad discretion in assigning weight that is to be accorded expert testimony. See Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Board was well within its discretion to give more credibility to [one expert over another] unless no reasonable trier of fact could have done so.”); see also CTPG5 34–36. In sum, Petitioner has not persuaded us that Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony should be given no weight because Mr. Jones is not qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art according to our definition. See Pet. Reply 2–5; see also PO Sur-reply 10–13. 5 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (CTPG) (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner did not challenge Petitioner’s position on these terms. See Prelim. Resp. 1–13. We determined there were no claim terms that needed to be construed in our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 9– 10. Post-institution, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction of these terms and “does not believe either term requires construction, because . . . Petitioner fails to demonstrate obviousness regardless of how these terms [(“lockstep is recoverable” and “loss of lockstep is recoverable”)] are construed. PO Resp. 2. We agree with Patent Owner that no claim construction is necessary for purposes of this Decision. That is, we do not discern any claim terms that are in controversy on the full record. 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 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Mr. Jones’ testimony amounts to conjecture because it is unsupported by evidence, for the reasons explained by Petitioner. See Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 2007 ¶ 32; see 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”). However, we find that Dr. Brogioli provides sufficient persuasive evidence as to how firmware FRC logic would be used and modified in the Bigbee/Nguyen combination. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 57–58, 96–98. As discussed above, Bigbee uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35–37, Fig. 4A. Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic does not determine if lockstep is recoverable. Id. Similar to Bigbee, Nguyen also uses firmware FRC logic to check for an error within a processor core. See Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 18, Fig. 7. However, the difference is that Nguyen’s firmware FRC logic determines if lockstep is recoverable. Id. We find for the reasons given by Petitioner and Dr. Brogioli including those summarized supra, that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bigbee by implementing Nguyen’s determination in firmware. Pet. 33–35 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 94 (stating that “[i]mplementing logical steps in firmware was known in the art”); ¶ 95 (stating that Bigbee’s system “is compliant with well-known industry standards”); ¶ 98 (stating that “firmware is flexible” and “can be modified after production, updated, and supported relatively quickly and inexpensively.”)). In contrast, Patent Owner’s arguments fail to convince us that a person of ordinary skill in the art, having knowledge of Nguyen’s teaching of determining lockstep recovery, would not have able to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic to determine if lockstep is recoverable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”); see also id. at 418. Accordingly, Petitioner has presented reasoning, with rational underpinnings, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to modify Bigbee’s firmware FRC logic based upon Nguyen’s teachings and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Accordingly, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that this element is taught or suggested by the Bigbee/Nguyen combination.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 7,502,958 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,502,958 - PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious . . . 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). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art (“POSITA”) in Sept. 2007 would have had a working knowledge of network communications techniques and highspeed packet processing technologies. Ex.1003, ¶20. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of work experience in network communications. Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶20. Pet. 13. We use this definition for purposes of this Decision because it appears consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’471 patent.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that no terms require express construction. Pet. 13. We do not expressly construe any terms at this time. Realtime, 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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As to the claim requirement that the direct memory access device concurrently write the packet buffer memory and the protocol stack layer memory, Petitioner asserts that neither Cornett nor Paatela explicitly describes the timing of packet writing. Pet. 42. Petitioner asserts, however, that Nelson discloses writing a packet header separately and in parallel with writing the entire packet. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:66–7:4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Indeed, Nelson explains that the parallel storage action “avoid[s] having to read the frames out of the [larger frame] buffer” when reading a header, which eliminates the need for a separate reading step and “allows the routing decision to be made before the [frame] buffer becomes available.” Ex. 1006, 2:1–22 (containing the quoted language), 7:1–4 (describing “parallel . . . storage”). Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious to write the packet header at the same time as writing the entire packet in Cornett, because Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson are concerned with speed, and writing in parallel would increase speed (vs. writing serially). Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90); see also id. at 26 (similar argument). Reviewing Petitioner’s position with respect to independent claim 13, we determine that Petitioner has addressed each limitation in sufficient detail and with adequate citations to the record. Petitioner has also provided sufficient reasons for combining the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson with a reasonable expectation of success. Reviewing the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 13 would have been obvious in view of Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,738,471 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01347 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We must also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesNo construction neededOther
“1. Means-Plus-Function Terms Challenged claim 26 recites elements using the word “means.” See Ex. 1001, 21:6–22:5. The use of the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies.9 See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process. We must first identify the claimed function. Then, we must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function. Id. at 1351 (citation omitted). The parties do not dispute that 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies to those “means” elements recited in claim 26. See Pet. 6–8; see generally Prelim. Resp. a. “system firmware means for detecting loss of lockstep (LOL) for a processor in a multi-processor system” (Claim limitation [26a])” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that these terms “should be construed to include both mismatch errors and errors that may eventually result in mismatch errors constituting a ‘precursor to lockstep mismatch’—including at least one of (1) detecting a lockstep mismatch error; and (2) detecting an error that may eventually cause a lockstep mismatch error.” Pet. 6. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he specification provides detecting these two types of errors as examples of detection of LOL.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:40–3:6, 7:25–36; Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 34–36). Petitioner further asserts that this construction “is consistent with the undisputed construction in the IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,958.” Id. (citing BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Foras Techs. Ltd., IPR2023-01373, Paper 18 at 2 (PTAB July 12, 2024)). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position or discuss claim construction in the Preliminary Response. meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy. 3. Summary and Conclusion For the reasons given, we determine that at this stage, we do not need expressly to construe any claim term for this Decision. 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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent, and at least two years of prior work experience with computer architecture design, including fault-tolerant computer architecture design,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 28–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to this contention. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’302 patent specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,624,302 - PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01346 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Fox, Safford, and Arai, with or without Landry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“As can be seen in the discussion above and the analysis of Petitioner’s grounds below, Arai and Landry are significant to Petitioner’s challenges. Because the Office did not previously consider all of the prior art references or combinations of references relied on in the Petition, including Arai and Landry, and because Arai and Landry are not the same or substantially the same as the art that was previously considered, we determine the Office did not previously consider the same or substantially the same prior art as is relied on in the Petition.8 Further, we find that there is not a substantial overlap, if any, between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art, including Arai and Landry, as discussed above. Therefore, part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is not met, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 24
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “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). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Furthermore, we deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). We therefore institute inter partes review on all challenged claims and all grounds. See” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Motivation to Combine Fox, Safford, and Arai and Fox, Safford, Landry, and Arai Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill “would have found it obvious to combine Fox’s multiprocessor system with Safford’s lockstep processor and error detection logics and Arai’s processor-switching implementation details.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to implement the processors in Fox as lockstep processors to improve reliability and availability of Fox’s server system for critical processes, for which higher reliability and availability of the system are desired.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 90. He further testifies that “[a person or ordinary skill] also would have been motivated to implement in Fox the error detection logics that detect loss of lockstep together with the lockstep processors as taught by Safford to implement lockstep functions and further improve availability of the system.” Id. He testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood how to implement Fox’s processors as lockstep processors with error detection logics and expect success. [A person of ordinary skill] would only have applied well-known configurations and ordinary hardware and software configuration skills.” Id. ¶ 91. Dr. Brogioli provides additional reasons motivating the combination. Id. ¶¶ 92–99. Petitioner contends that “Arai discloses switching the role of a failing processor with a spare processor.” Pet. 10. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have been motivated to incorporate Arai’s teaching of transferring processor context from the failing processor to the spare processor not to interrupt the operating system and its running applications as desired by Fox.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 109. He reasons that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that incorporating Arai’s benefit of switching the role of the failing processor to the spare processor without affecting the operating system and running applications, which is expressly taught as desirable by both Fox and Arai and well known in the art.” Id. ¶ 110. Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill also would have been motivated to further combine these references with Landry. Pet. 33–35. Dr. Brogioli testifies that “Landry discloses a fault-tolerant boot process that dynamically designates a functional CPU as logical CPU0 that performs the unique functions of a boot processor.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 147. He testifies further that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood Landry’s process would have been a suitable option for selecting a boot processor in Fox’s system consistent with the initialization protocol of the IA-32 multiprocessor system.” Id. He asserts that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood the benefits of implementing Landry’s boot processor selection process in Fox.” Id. ¶ 148. Among other reasons, “[a person of ordinary skill] would have further understood that using the logical CPU0 as the identification for the boot processor allows for transparent replacement of the physical processor experiencing a failure with another processor without interrupting the operating system.” Id. At this stage, Patent Owner does not respond to these arguments by Petitioner or refute the testimony by Dr. Brogioli. On this record, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated a motivation to combine Fox and Safford with Arai and to further combine these references with Landry with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We are not aware of any controversy between the parties over the meaning of these claim terms that would affect this Decision. Therefore, we determine that at this stage, we do not need to expressly construe these claim terms to resolve a controversy.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,627,781 - PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Daniel Kazhdan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 on all four obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We find that this factor marginally favors Petitioners. Fintiv explains that the fact that a “district court has denied a motion for stay without prejudice” and has indicated on the record “that it will consider a renewed motion or reconsider a motion to stay if a PTAB trial is instituted” “has usually weighed against exercising authority to deny institution.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6–7. That is what happened here. When the district court denied Petitioner Savant’s motion for a stay in the Ohio litigation, it stated that, “[i]f the Patent Trial and Appeal Board accepts the petition for inter partes review, the parties may rebrief this issue.” See No. 1:24-cv-473 (N.D. Ohio) December 12, 2024, Order. Ex. 1025. Thus, this factor weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“prevail in showing that it would have been obvious to use blue light with a wavelength that is greater than 440 nm. Basin-2007 does not specify a specific wavelength for the blue light, but, as Patent Owner acknowledges, “blue light is generally emitted in the range of 380 to 500 nm.” Prelim. Resp. 55; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 121. Thus, the question is whether a skilled artisan, when looking for which wavelength to use, would have found it obvious to use anything in the half of the blue-light range that is greater than or equal to 440 nm. On its own, this overlap in ranges would be strong evidence of obviousness. See Galderma Lab’ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Petitioners show even more. Basin-2005 discloses that there is an “assum[ption]” that blue-light LEDs emit “in the range of 420-490 nm.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 30 (cited in Pet. 25). Basin-2005 additionally teaches that its “blue, UV, or near UV LED[s]” are “relatively easy to implement and consistently produce[] the desired white light temperature.” Id. ¶ 6 (cited in Pet. 25). Furthermore, Shimizu and Stokes indicate that people were using higher wavelength blue-light in their LEDs. See Pet. 8, 24–25 (citing sources). Because a skilled artisan would have needed to select some wavelength for the blue light disclosed in Basin-2007, at this stage, we conclude that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to include wavelengths from the higher end of the range—as disclosed in so many references. Basin-2007 discloses using a “conventional white light LED.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 21. As evidenced by Shimizu and Stokes, the conventional white light LED sources used blue light with wavelengths greater than or equal to 440 nm. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 121 (citing sources). Patent Owner argues that “quantum efficiency” considerations would lead to using lower wavelengths, but Patent Owner does not explain why these same considerations did not convince Basin-2005, Shimizu, or Stokes to use lower wavelengths. Based on our review of the current record, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving that the combined teachings of Basin-2005 and Basin-2007 render claim 1 unpatentable as obvious.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to Petitioners, [A person of ordinary skill in the art] would have had an undergraduate degree (i.e., B.S., B.S.E. or the equivalent) in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a similar discipline. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have one to two years of experience in the field of LED packaging design. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa. Pet. 6. For purposes of institution, “Patent Owner takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 36–37. At this stage, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioners and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “light diffusing layer” is exactly what it says: “a layer that diffuses light.” The claims separately recite one function for this layer: it must “improve[] an off-state white appearance of the wavelength conversion component.” Ex. 1001 at 26:15–17; see id. at 27:25–27. That is all.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00958 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–12 and 19–28 over Linnarsson, McCloskey, and ordinary skill; claims 13–18 over those references plus McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 16 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey (i.e., Ex. 1004). Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 22. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014-00148, Paper 429 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner does not directly dispute Petitioner’s proposal but does offer its own proposal. PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner proposes that the skilled artisan “would have had a Ph.D. in molecular biology, molecular genetics, biochemistry, physics, mechanical engineering, or a related discipline, with 7 Exhibit 1002 is a declaration by Petitioner’s witness, Gregory Cooper, Ph.D. two years of academic, research, or industry experience in the field of genomic or transcriptome sequencing.” Id. (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶25–268). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’013 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,697,013 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,697,013 - Parse Biosciences, Inc. v. 10x Genomics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 31, 2025 · IPR2023-00955 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–4, 6–11, 20, and 23–25 over Linnarsson and McCloskey; claims 5, 12, 21, 22, and 26 with ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 13–19 with McCloskey II.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part
“Clearly, the second Hall-Ellis declaration is offered to prove that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Ex. 1085 ¶50 (“In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that [McCloskey] was publicly available no later than [January 3, 2008].”). Thus, the second Hall-Ellis declaration should have been served within ten business days of Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to the admissibility of McCloskey. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) (“The party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence within ten business days of service of the objection.”). In its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, Petitioner argues that, under Hulu LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, No. IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 (Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential), it was allowed to wait until its Reply to file the second Hall-Ellis declaration. Paper 37, 2. The Board in Hulu does state that, “if the patent owner challenges a reference’s status as a printed publication, a petitioner may submit a supporting declaration with its reply to further support its argument that a reference qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu at 15 (37 C.F.R. § 42.23). However, the Board’s statement was referring to the scope of permissible reply arguments under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). See Hulu at 14 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)’s in the prior sentence and in the subtitle to the relevant portion of its Objection. Id. requirement that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, or patent owner response”). The Board in Hulu does not purport to interpret 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 or even discuss supplemental evidence. Petitioner clearly missed the deadline imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2), which was triggered by Patent Owner’s February 15, 2024, objection to McCloskey. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is granted with respect to the second Hall-Ellis declaration (i.e., Ex. 1085). Despite the exclusion of the second Hall-Ellis declaration, there is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that McCloskey is a prior art printed publication. McCloskey itself states: “Received: 31 January 2007 / Accepted: 29 May 2007 / Published online: 23 October 2007.” Ex. 1004, 1. McCloskey additionally states that it was published in a 2007 print issue of “Biochem Genet,” with Petitioner adding that the full name of the journal is BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS and that McCloskey was published in a December 2007 volume of the journal. Id.; Pet. 29. McCloskey also includes a copyright notice by “Springer Science+Business Media, LLC” with a date of date of 2007. Ex. 1004, 1. Patent Owner argues that this is unreliable hearsay that should be excluded. PO Mot. To Exclude 4 (citing Neste Oil Oyj v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, No. IPR2013-00578, Paper 53 at 5–7 (Mar. 12, 2015); Standard Innovation Corp. v. Lelo, Inc., No. IPR2014- 00148, Paper 4210 at 13–18, 21–22 (Apr. 23, 2015)). We are not persuaded 10 Patent Owner actually cited to “Pap.41” of Standard Innovation. PO Mot. To Exclude 4. There is no Paper 41 in the record of that case. We presume Patent Owner intended to cite Paper 42, which is the final written decision in that case. by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner is correct that, under Sanofi-Aventis, a petitioner bears the burden of persuasion to establish that an asserted prior art reference is analogous art to the claimed invention. See Sanofi-Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1377 (“We agree with [the patent owner] that [the petitioner] did not carry its burden to argue that de Gennes is analogous to the [challenged] patent.”); id. (“In evaluating whether a reference is analogous, we have consistently held that a patent challenger must compare the reference to the challenged patent.”); id. at 1378–79 (“We have routinely held that the petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability.”). However, as we noted when instituting this proceeding, “Sanofi-Aventis further held: ‘A petitioner is not required to anticipate and raise analogous art arguments in its petition; instead a petitioner can use its reply to “respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition, patent owner preliminary response, patent owner response, or decision on institution.”’” Dec. on Reh’g 15 (quoting Sanofi- Aventis, 66 F.4th at 1379 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 42.23)).” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“by Patent Owner’s argument or its reliance on these cases. The facts before us are different. In Neste Oil, the Board “note[d] that the alleged ‘stamps’ of Exhibits 1125 and 1132 are actually handwritten dates, added to the documents by an unknown person at an unknown time.” Neste Oil, Paper 53 at 6. In contrast, the dates relied upon by Petitioner are printed, appear to have been included at the time of printing, and appear to have been printed by, or at the direction of, the journal and/or copyright holder, both of which are identified by McCloskey. Ex. 1004, 1. In Standard Innovation, the alleged prior art exhibits were “printouts of … webpages” bearing a copyright indication of “© 2003-2013,” which the petitioner argued was proof of subset of the webpages being disseminated publicly in 2003. Standard Innovation, Paper 42 at 13. This is a far cry from McCloskey, which is a journal article and which includes specific date information, not only of publishing, but also of when the journal received and accepted the article for publication as well as when it was copyrighted. Ex. 1004, 1. That McCloskey is what it purports to be (a journal article) and that it was published in 2007 are corroborated by multiple pieces of evidence.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“In sum, we find Petitioner’s rationale that a skilled artisan would have made the proposed combination to solve the problem of amplification bias persuasive.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,240,197 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,240,197 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01343 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 13–15, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Bose and White, alone or in the asserted combinations, failed to teach claimed workload comparisons or workload monitoring.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded and find for the reasons given that Petitioner fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that White teaches or suggests “receiving a bus workload for a communication bus and a first processing element workload for a first processing element based on an integrated circuit reaching a limit.” Patent Owner’s expert Dr. Brogioli testifies that “[t]he workload is a function of the demands imposed by, e.g., applications running on the system, and may or may not be subject to direct control, whereas the conditions under which that workload is processed are controlled directly.” Brogioli Decl. ¶ 66. We agree with Dr. Brogioli and find that White’s frequency and voltage monitoring and adjustments do not result in the power management logic receiving the bus workload as recited in claim element 4[a]. Id. ¶¶ 64–66. We find the testimony of Mr. Wyatt on this issue unconvincing. Wyatt Decl. ¶ 103. In support of his opinion that “monitoring the operating voltages and frequencies of the logic core 120A and common logic bridge 110 is monitoring the workload of those components,” he states: “It was well understood that operating frequency and voltage of a component reflect the activity and use, or workload, of that component.” Id. However, he does not provide any evidentiary support for this statement. We, therefore, give it little weight. See PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019)5 (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”) (citing Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).” slip op. at 30
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“response. Paper 9. At the institution stage, therefore, Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 12–13. In its Response, Patent Owner states that it “uses this definition” in its analysis. PO Resp. 15 (citing Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25). In view of the foregoing, for this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’494 patent and the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Mr. Wyatt. See Wyatt Decl. ¶ 21.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted
“Post-institution, Patent Owner proposes a construction for the term “workload.” PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner contends that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in the ’494 patent, the term ‘workload’ means ‘an amount of activity over a quantum or period of time.’” Id. at 15. Dr. Brogioli’s testimony supports this construction, as does Mr. Wyatt’s. Brogioli Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Wyatt Dep. 34:14–36:9. The ’494 patent also supports this construction. Ex. 1001, 8:20–22, 9:60–63. Petitioner does not dispute this proposed construction in its Reply. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “workload.”” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Nowhere does Petitioner or its expert point to an explicit disclosure in Bose of making a comparison of the claimed “bus workload and a bus workload threshold.” Instead, Petitioner relies on its expert’s opinion as to what a person of ordinary skill might have known, without any additional supporting evidence. See, e.g., Pet. 26 (“[A person of ordinary skill] would have understood global PMCU compares a workload threshold as exemplified by the predicted power and performance of each power mode and the monitored workload to select and adjust the power mode of a component” (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 54–55)). This opinion is not supported by the record. The only disclosure of a comparison in Bose that we have been shown is the comparison of PowerTotal to PowerMax in step 303 of Figure 3, which Petitioner does not rely on to meet the “comparison” limitation in the claim. Hearing Tr. 17:16–20. Also without proper support is Petitioner’s assertion that “a [person of ordinary skill] would have understood that in Bose, selecting or adjusting power mode for a component entails comparing a workload threshold, such as predicted power and performance associated with each power mode with real time statistics, such as the monitored workload of a component.” Pet. 26 (citing Wyatt Decl. ¶¶ 55–56). We determine that for the reasons given, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimed comparison element 1[g] of claim 1 is taught or suggested by Bose. We find, therefore, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that claim 1 is anticipated by Bose, nor has Petitioner demonstrated that to a person of ordinary skill, claim 1 would have been obvious in light of Bose.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,898,494 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,898,494 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted
“operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,080
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.