- PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–11 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent on all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“1 We apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”). See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Petitioner does not list claim 1 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claim 1 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 56– 57. 3 Petitioner does not list claims 1and 4 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claims 1 and 4 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 73. 4 Petitioner argues that the Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Pet. 77–78; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Because Patent Owner does not argue for discretionary denial, we see no need to consider the issue further.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The specification of the ’240 patent describes its technical field as relating to “‘secure documents’ …having RFID (radio frequency identification) chips …operating in contactless mode (ISO 14443) including dual interface (‘DI’, or ‘DIF’) cards which can also operate in contact mode (ISO 7816-2), and more particularly to improving coupling between components within the smart card …and consequent improvements in interacting with external RFID readers.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–34. The specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See e.g., id. at 6:55–58. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 20035, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, on the record currently before us, we are not persuaded that the level of 5 Our citations are to the native page numbers in the document and not Patent Owner’s numbering. devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“B. Dr. van der Weide’s Level of Experience Patent Owner argues that we should not give substantial weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–72. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. at 27. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Based on the current record, Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - Globalfoundries Inc. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. et al. v. Katana Silicon Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00763 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“which is electrically coupled to the source/drain” that “is in contact with the source/drain at a source/drain surface.” Ex. 1001, 26:62–27:12. Claims 2– 12 and 16–18 all depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Id. at 27:13– 28:31. Accordingly, all of the claims Petitioner challenges as obvious over combinations of prior art based on JP848 incorporate the limitations of claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(c). Therefore, to show the obviousness of any of these claims, Petitioner must show that the asserted prior art teaches or suggests “a contact which is electrically coupled to the source/drain” that “is in contact with the source/drain at a source/drain surface.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“ANALYSIS A. Claim Construction Petitioner argues that no claim terms require express construction. Pet. 12. Patent Owner also does not propose express construction of any term. Prelim. Resp. 16–17. We agree with the parties that no terms in the challenged claims require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,291,861 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00014 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 8–14, 21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 15–20, 22, and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” This definition is consistent with the ordinary dictionary definition that Patent Owner advances. Resp. 10; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’976 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” To the contrary, the ’976 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something such as an end point so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, ’976 patent Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:50–55; see also Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’976 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’976 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 14; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. The prior art asserted in the Petition appears, on this record, as representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’976 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’976 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the record before us, the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position. King is concerned with delivering small particles to a patient: King states, for example, that an object of its invention is to “deliver to the patient essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist that originates from the nebulizer itself.” Ex. 1006 2:19–22; see also id. at [57] (stating that its apparatus delivers medication “in essentially the same particle size distribution of the aerosol mist”); 1:7–10 (stating that invention “delivers a mist of properly sized aerosol particles”); 1:60–65 (stating that invention “functions in a manner to assure that the medicament particles delivered to the patient will be of optimum size”). King states that in “this latest form of the invention this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100 (Fig. 20).” Id. at 6:20– 22. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that design of the passage, through which aerosolized particles pass, will affect the size of output particles. Ex. 1003 ¶ 60; Ex. 1004 ¶ 27 (teaching that, for example, “tight bends” may be use to separate small airborne particles from big particles). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the spiral structure of King’s passage is an example of a “tight bend” (as referenced by Rosener) that can help control what size of particle progresses through the entire passage. Ex. 1006 6:16–22 (explaining that “this important baffle means comprises a generally spiral-shaped wall 100” and serves to “provid[e] a circuitous fluid flow path through the first chamber”)8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–61. A person of ordinary skill in the art’s use of a spiral structure, as taught by King, to further control particle size via tight bends, as taught by Rosener, would have been obvious because it would have been a “predictable use of a prior art elements according to their established function.” KSR Int’l, Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Rather than a spiral disrupting Rosener’s separation as Patent Owner argues, the combined teachings of Rosener and King suggest that King’s spiral would assist in achieving separation and particle size control (as Rosener and King teach). Dr. Morse’s testimony is credible in this regard and supports our findings and conclusion along with the references themselves. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–56. Thus, for the reasons explained above, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 2 and 11 of the ’976 patent would have been obvious over Rosener in view of King.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Ultimately, to determine whether Rosener’s suggested tortuous passage is a structure capable performing the functionality of claims 7 and 16, we would need to determine that, because of Rosener’s tortuous passage, liquid would take more time to leak when the device is upended than if the tortuous passage was not present. The record before us, however, does not adequately support such a finding. Here again, the paucity of information provided by Petitioner, who bears the burden of showing unpatentability, tips against a conclusion that these claims are proven unpatentable. Although tight bends and corners might make the flow take longer to leak from the cartridge (as Petitioner urges at Reply 4–6), Petitioner does not establish that this is the case and, moreover, does not establish that it is not the case that the tight bends and corners might make the liquid take less time to leak from the cartridge. As Patent Owner argues, where a channel narrows in a direction of flow, a fluid’s speed may increase in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. Sur-Reply 7–8.10 This principle is evidenced by the Svoboda reference, which explains that gas will travel faster through the “necked down portion 29” of its venturi tube. Ex. 1008, 4:4–8, Fig. 1, 2 (illustrating necked down portion 29). Accordingly, the record is unclear as to whether the tight bends and corners would speed up or slow down the flow of liquid from the cartridge. Additionally, Rosener does not refer to its tortuous passage as preventing leaking, and if the tortuous passage were capable of doing so, it is unclear why the valve would be necessary. See 10 The record also lacks evidence regarding to what extent other factors such as fluid viscosity, pressure differentials, and friction losses could potentially also affect flow speed. This lack of evidence, again, underscores Petitioner’s failure to meet its burden to show unpatentability of these claims. generally Ex. 1004; see also Ex. 2005 ¶ 68 (Dr. Mello’s written testimony on point). In any event, for reasons explained by Patent Owner, Petitioner’s analysis regarding the path and speed of liquid flow when Rosener’s device is upended is insufficient to support the unpatentability of claims 7 and 16 (Sur-Reply 1–18), at least because Petitioner fails to take account of leakage through orifice 401 or because of Rosener’s express need for a valve to provide for a device that “may be inverted without causing the fragrance oil to pour out” (id. at 12). See Ex. 1004 Fig. 2D (illustrating position of orifice 401), ¶ 33 (describing Rosener’s valve); see also Resp. 11–17 (Patent Owner’s arguments); Pet. 29–30, 33; Reply 4–6 (Petitioner’s analysis).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,745,976 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,745,976 - Scentair Technologies, LLC v. Prolitec, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2022 · IPR2021-00012 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 6, 8–10, 13–16, 18, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board did not find claims 1–4, 7, 11, 12, 17, 19–21, 23, and 24 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“factual determination that provides a primary guarantee of objectivity in an obviousness analysis. Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering as well as at least three years of experience working with, designing, or studying liquid diffusion devices or similar devices.” Pet. 16; Ex. 1003 ¶ 13. Patent Owner does not dispute that definition or advance an alternative definition. See Resp. 79 (repeating Petitioner’s definition). The prior art asserted in the Petition, on this record, is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To the extent a more specific definition is required, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition (Pet. 16) because it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’004 patent and the prior art references that form the basis for Petitioner’s challenges. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–43 (abstract and overview of technical field of invention of the ’004 patent); Ex. 1004, code (57), ¶ 3 (abstract and background of Rosener’s invention); Ex. 1005, code (57), 1:1–13:12 (abstract and background of Rubin’s invention).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We determine that “toward” in the context of these claims means “in the direction of.” Ex. 2003, 3. That definition is consistent with the dictionary definition advanced by Patent Owner. Resp. 7–11; Ex. 2003, 3 (ordinary dictionary defining toward as “in the direction of” or, alternatively, as “along a course leading to”). Patent Owner argues that the ’004 patent describes embodiments supporting Patent Owner’s construction of “toward,” but directs us to no disclosure that requires “aiming.” Id. To the contrary, the ’004 patent suggests that liquid moves “toward” something, such as an end point, so long as it advances along a path leading to the end point. Reply 1–4 (Petitioner collecting examples). For example, in the ’004 patent, Figures 5 and 6 illustrate fluid taking a spiral flow pattern to outlet zone 174. The specification explains that the liquid takes a “curvilinear path . . . as it moves from the inlet 172 toward the outlet zone 174.” Ex. 1001, 10:34–36; see Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 8–16 (Dr. Morse providing testimony regarding this and other ’004 patent embodiments). Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s position, the specification uses the word “toward” to describe liquid that moves in the direction of the outlet––without reference to aiming––and even where the liquid’s movement encounters obstacles or otherwise fails to travel in a straight line to the outlet. We agree with Petitioner that “‘aimed’ is found nowhere in the intrinsic evidence and is contrary to the specification” of the ’004 patent. Reply 1. Further, Patent Owner’s own extrinsic evidence does not include the word “aimed” in the definition of “toward.” Ex. 2003, 3. Against that backdrop, for reasons stated above, we determine that “toward” in the context of the challenged claims means “in the direction of.”” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We recognize, in that regard, that a witness “must at minimum possess ordinary skill in the art” in order to opine about the level of skill in the art. Kyocera Secco Indus. Tools Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Dr. Morse has at least the qualifications of an ordinarily skilled artisan and is qualified to provide opinions as to what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood as of April 22, 2014. Based on Dr. Morse’s statement of qualifications and curriculum vitae, as well as his stated familiarity with the state of the prior art at the time of the invention, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Morse is qualified to provide opinions keyed to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–5, 9, 11, App’x pp. 69–73. In any event, to the extent we agree that Petitioner establishes unpatentability as explained above, the prior art references themselves are adequate for Petitioner’s showing of unpatentability even if we were to provide little or no weight to Dr. Morse’s testimony.” slip op. at 61
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“It is not clear, on this record, that guiding surfaces 10 are formed as spirals, as opposed to flat surfaces arranged to “project” and “extend[]” into the atomizing space in a helical pattern. Id.; see Resp. 37–38. Nor is it clear, on this record, how guiding surfaces 10 relate, if at all, to the formation of the transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” described in Knoch, which forms only during normal operation of the device. Id. Knoch indicates that the spiral vortex is formed as a result of the placement and orientation of openings 2 and 3, and that “homogenization” of the aerosolized particles occurs, not via impaction with guiding surfaces 10, but rather, as a result of particles traveling a transient airflow path defined by the spiral vortex. Ex. 1006, Figs. 1, 2, 2:48–61, 3:10–4:25, 5:14–38, 5:56–63; see Pet. 31–32 (relying on “homogenization” that occurs when “vaporized liquid” traverses a transient airflow path defined by the “spiral vortex” in Knoch’s device) (quoting Ex. 1006, 3:26–29 5:28–32); see supra 44 n.13. To be clear, Knoch’s spiral vortex is a transient path of airflow that forms only during normal operation of the device, and Petitioner directs us to no persuasive information that Rosener employs any comparable approach “to perform the same functions within the same general structure.” Pet. 24. The lack of analysis provided in the Petition on that key point undermines this challenge. Id. at 23–25, 31–32; Reply 9–10 (totality of Petitioner’s information on that point); see supra 44 n.13. Even if we set aside that problem, however, we find, in the alternative, that Petitioner fails to explain adequately how or why Knoch would have suggested a tortuous passage (as opposed to a transient airflow path) that spirals between the inlet and outlet zone of Rosener’s insert. Without adequate analysis, Petitioner merely refers us to Figure 2E of Rosener, which shows a tortuous passage extending from inlet 401 to outlet zone 240, then directs us to guiding surfaces 10 illustrated in Knoch’s Figure 1. Pet. 31–32. The paucity of analysis provided in the Petition, particularly on the question of where, how, and why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have included a spiraling impaction surface extending from Rosener’s inlet 401 to outlet zone 240 in view of Knoch, persuades us that the proposed modification is driven, not by any suggestion in the prior art, but rather, by an impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention. Id.; see Resp. 27–39 (Patent Owner’s arguments on that point). Petitioner does not establish that Knoch teaches a spiraling” slip op. at 45
Patent outcomesUS 9,162,004 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,162,004 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01173 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Weiss-based grounds teach or suggest the claimed residual marine fuel oil.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 12–31. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 6–12. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine we need not expressly construe any terms of the challenged claims at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum 10 Petitioner defines “HSFO” as being a “high-sulfur HMFO” and “LSFO” as being a “low-sulfur HMFO.” Pet. 1. product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are anticipated by Weiss ’974 or obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974 and Weiss ’515.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,584,287 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01175 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 were obvious over any asserted combination of references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim on any asserted ground.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“feedstock HMFO and the product HMFO of the challenged claims, as Petitioner argues it does, Petitioner must show that Weiss ’974 teaches or suggests four facts: (1) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is a residual petroleum product, (2) the pre-hydrotreatment HSFO is ISO-8217-compliant, (3) the post-hydrotreatment LSFO is a residual petroleum product, and (4) the posthydrotreatment LSFO is ISO-8217-compliant. Petitioner does not show all four of these facts sufficiently to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that the challenged claims are obvious over the combination of Weiss ’974, Weiss ’515, and ISO 8217:2017. Petitioner’s arguments show only that the fuel oil is a bunker fuel that complies with ISO 8217. See, e.g., Pet. 27, 47. These arguments alone are insufficient because ISO-8217-compliant bunker fuels can be either distillate-based or residual-based. Ex. 1003, 14–17; Ex. 1082 ¶ 29; Ex. 2007 ¶ 25. Thus, showing that a fuel is a bunker fuel or that a fuel complies with ISO 8217 does not show that the fuel is residual-based.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,533,141 - Phillips 66 v. Magēmā Technology, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2021-01174 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, or 5 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Buchanan’s blending units to carry out Parkash’s blending process to produce any of HSFO1, HSFO2, or HSFO3. First, paragraph 40 of Buchanan teaches blending a generic “residual fuel product” with a generic “distillate fuel oil product” in order “to form a homogeneous final blended fuel oil product.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 40. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Buchanan’s generic blending teachings to apply to the production of the specific fuel oils Petitioner identifies as HSFO1, HSFO2, and HSFO3. Second, to the extent that Petitioner contends that Buchanan’s teaching applies to any mixture of two fuel oils, one residual and one distillate, we note that Parkash teaches blending multiple process streams, including several distillate streams and at least two residual streams. Ex. 1102, 14. Petitioner does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Buchanan’s two-stream blending unit to apply to Parkash’s multi-stream blending process. Third, Petitioner’s statement that “it would have been obvious to employ ‘[a]ny blending process as known by a [POSITA]’” in carrying out Parkash’s blending method is conclusory. Pet. 67. “[A] finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In other words, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). A conclusory statement without supporting evidence or rationale does not provide the requisite reasoning. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”).” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“D. Discretionary Denial Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). Prelim. Resp. 10–30. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 7–13. Because we deny institution based on the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments, we need not decide whether to exercise discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,604,709 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2021-00821 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner 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
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasonable likelihood of showing any of challenged claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art. Independent claims 1, 26 and 27 recite “wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least a plurality of views of digital media content.” Ex. 1001, 47:58–59, 50:66–67, 51:41–52:1. The independent claims further require transitioning “between the plurality of views.” Id. at 47:60, 51:1, 52:4–5. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner asserts that the prior art teaches a plurality of views because “[t]he Shimura-Tsuji Computer can orient the displayed content in either a normal view in the laptop mode or an inverted view in the easel mode based on the outputs of the rotation angle and gravity sensors.” Pet. 50; see id. at 82, 84. Petitioner further asserts that in its proffered combination, “image files . . . would be displayed in either a normal view in the laptop mode or an inverted view in the easel mode, thereby disclosing ‘the graphical user interface comprising at least a plurality of views of digital media content.’” Id. at 50–51; see id. at 82, 84. Similarly, Petitioner explains that its asserted prior-art combination teaches transitioning between views because “[w]hen a user configures the Shimura-Tsuji-Aldrich Computing System between the laptop and easel modes, the displayed content . . . would ‘transition between the plurality of views [normal and inverted views] in response.” Id. at 51. In short, Petitioner relies only on different orientations of the same displayed content to meet the claimed plurality of views. Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the asserted combination of Shimura, Tsuji and Aldrich teach or suggest the claimed plurality of views of digital media content and transitioning between those views, as required in all independent challenged claims.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“As Patent Owner explains, the ’888 patent discusses views extensively. See Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (providing numerous citations to the ’888 patent). In particular, the ’888 patent describes many examples of views that each organize content in a different way. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 5 (album view), 7A (single album view), 8 (time view), 16 (a view including cards); see also id. at 21:35–23:58 (describing the ’888 patent’s figures). We agree with Patent Owner that, when discussing views, the ’888 patent consistently refers to different ways of organizing content. See Prelim. Resp. 35–44; see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:14–15 (explaining that “[e]ach view may offer the user particular interaction options, features and benefits”), 21:16–19 (time view organizing content chronologically), 21:19-22 (album view organizing content by album), 22:59-64 (single album view showing previews of photographs). But, as Patent Owner notes, “[t]he specification never describes two orientations of the same organization of displayed content as different ‘views.’” Prelim. Resp. 37. Instead, the ’888 patent separately addresses the display’s “orientation,” which, according to the specification, is achieved simply by rotating the display. Ex. 1001, 10:27–30 (“the plurality of orientations comprises a first orientation relative to the longitudinal axis and a second orientation relative to the longitudinal axis,”), 10:46–49 “(the second orientation is 90 degrees relative to the first orientation, and . . . the third orientation is 180 degrees relative to the first orientation”), 10:57–11:8 (characterizing the display’s “orientation” as a “degree of rotation”). The ’888 patent also expressly distinguishes between displayed content and its orientation in describing that “display content and/or display orientation of the portable computer may vary when the portable computer is configured from the laptop mode into the easel mode.” Id. at 37:6–9. The ’888 patent, however, does not refer to merely changing the visual display’s orientation as changing views. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consistent with the ’888 patent’s specification, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “a plurality of views of digital media content” as referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content. The recitation is distinct from merely changing the display’s orientation.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,612,888 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00786 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Lenovo did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would be unpatentable over the asserted combinations of Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“above. As we explain in the summary of the ’715 patent provided in Section II.B, supra, the purpose of the ’715 patent is to better organize “more and more features” provided by “feature packing,” so that the typical computer user can better take advantage of features offered. Id. at 1:40–2:44. The ’715 patent explains that “different views [that] present different organizations of the interface elements and in some example[s] display only certain ones of the modes of content in order to reduce the number of options a user must navigate to accomplish an objective.” Id. at 2:45–58. As Patent Owner explains, the ’715 patent discusses views extensively. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 29–33 (providing numerous citations to the ’715 patent. In particular, the ’715 patent describes many examples of views that each organize content in a different way. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 2 (home view), 3A (web page view), 5 (quick access view), 6 (bookmark view), 20A (channel page view), 21 (channel full view), 23 (channel view); see also id. at 12:48–15:15 (summarizing the ’715 patent’s figures). We agree with Patent Owner that, when discussing views, the ’715 patent consistently refers to different ways of organizing content. Prelim. Resp. 29– 33.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner argues, the Petition relies only on different orientations (such as a “normal view” and an “inverted view”) of a single organization of displayed content, to meet claim 1’s views recitation. Id. at 24–25. For example, Patent Owner points out that the Petition considers Shimura’s display of the word “PATENT” right-side-up (normal view) and upside-down (inverted) as meeting the recited “plurality of views.” Id. at 26– 27 (citing Pet. 49–50, 54–55). As we explain above in our claim construction, however, inverting or re-orienting a single way of organizing displayed content does not create a “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as claimed and described in the ’715 patent. As such, Petitioner’s implicit “construction of ‘plurality of views’ as reading on different orientations of the same organization of displayed content is wrong because it is inconsistent with every embodiment of a ‘plurality of views’ described in the specification.” Id. at 25, 38–41. Indeed, Patent Owner correctly explains that the ’715 patent addresses reorientation of a display but reorientation does not result in the views recitation. Patent Owner makes this distinction by arguing: [in] the claims and the specification of the ’715 Patent—a “view” is a way of organizing displayed content. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:54–58 (“[t]he different views present different organizations of the interface elements”); 3:26–28 (“the plurality of views are configured to organize modes of content into different views”); 7:25–27, 9:55–57 (a “plurality of views” of computer content as recited in claims 1, 17 and 20, is a plurality of ways of organizing displayed content). . . . the specification also describes re-orientating the same display organization about the computer’s longitudinal axis to ensure it is right-side-up, but uses different terminology to describe that re-orientation and never refers to two different orientations of the same organization of displayed content as different views. . . . The specification makes clear “views” are particular ways of organizing displayed content—not different orientations of a single organization of displayed content. Prelim. Resp. 27–28; see id. at 29–37, 42–44. We find that Patent Owner’s explanation of this distinction is best supported by the text of the ’715 patent. Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,880,715
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.