- Honeywell International Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00493 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Honeywell did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 were unpatentable over any of its three obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claim 1 or dependent claims 2–9 over the combination of Simmelink and Section 73.1015.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelOther
“PHOSITA) at the time of the ’532 patent “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in the field of chemistry, chemical engineering, polymer chemistry, or materials science and at least three years of relevant work experience in the field of high strength fibers.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner adds that individuals with different educational backgrounds could still be of ordinary skill in the art if they have “additional experience [that] compensates for a deficit in their education and experience stated above.” Id. According to Patent Owner, a person or ordinary skill in the art, would have (i) a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, polymer chemistry, materials science, chemical engineering, or biomedical engineering and (ii) three years of experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. At this level of skill, a PHOSITA would have a detailed understanding of the information provided in the Technology Background, Section II, supra, including (i) the differences between linear HDPE and UHMWPE, (ii) the history underlying Section 73.1015 and the early failures of the 1960s-era blue, melt-extruded polyethylene sutures, (iii) why the molecular orientation of polyethylene molecules leads to strong yarns in the special case of gel-spun UHMWPE, and (iv) the challenges associated with coloring gel-spun UHMWPE yarns, especially for end-use medical applications. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar, except that Patent Owner additionally recognizes a Bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and requires experience in designing and manufacturing gel-spun UHMWPE yarns. In any event, we do not need to the same under either proposed definition.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“a skilled artisan would have understood that the “gel spinning” process recited in the claims requires the use of a solvent during the spinning process. Indeed, the Specification describes this term, as follows: Gel spinning is understood to include at least the steps of spinning filaments from a solution of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in a spin solvent; cooling the filament obtained to form a gel filament removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; removing at least partly the spin solvent from the gel filament; and drawing the filament in at least one drawing step before during or after removing spin solvent. Ex. 1001, 2:31–37. We recognize the inventor’s lexicography as dispositive with respect to the meaning of the term “gel spinning.” See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“Claim 1 describes gel spinning as the manner by which the filaments comprised in the claimed colored multi-filament yarn are obtained. This, on its face, is a product-by-process claim element because it describes the filament structure being obtained in a particular way, i.e., by gel spinning. See Kamstrup A/S v. Axioma Metering UAB, 43 F.4th 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Board that “cast in one piece” is a product-by-process claim element as it describes the structure being cast “in a particular way”). For this element to be limiting, it must impart “structural and functional differences” that distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340, 1365–67 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Patent Owner argues persuasively that gel spinning imparts structural and functional differences to the claimed product because the process “creates overlap between polyethylene molecules within the UHMWPE filaments that maximizes the intermolecular Van der Waals interactions, resulting in highly crystalline filaments with high tensile strength.” Prelim. Resp. 38, 22 (citing Ex. 1014, 62–66). According to Patent Owner, “the structure of the gel spun UHMWPE is substantially different from other types of UHMWPE such as compression-molded and ram-extruded UHMWPE used to make joint replacements and other orthopedic implants.” Id. at 38.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,280,532 - Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Aug 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds and granted Apple’s motion to join IPR2023-01183.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’641 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. And, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“In considering a motion for joinder, and whether such joinder is appropriate, the Board may consider “whether a new ground of unpatentability is raised in the second petition, how the cost and schedule of the first proceeding will be impacted if joinder is granted, and whether granting joinder will add to the complexity of briefing and/or discovery.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 20197 at 76 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Upon review of the prior art of record and the Petitioner’s arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “A method for improving . . . characterized in that,” “ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5), “as calculated by a specific capacity with a charge voltage limited to 4.2 V” (claim 1), and “at least 7500 of capacity” (claim 11). Pet. 8–11. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,749,641 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitutedPTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00299 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 based on a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (permitting the Board to institute trial on behalf of the Director). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in engineering plus five years of experience in design of mechanical beverage systems, or similar products, and experience with sensors for recognizing an identifier.” Pet. 16 (referencing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40; IPR2022-01574, Paper 12, 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’910 patent. For purposes of this Decision, based on the prior art, the sophistication of the technology at issue, and Mr. Jobin’s Declaration testimony, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. The ’901 patent, as well as the prior art of record, includes systems that use identifiers on a capsule to control the operation of a beverage machine. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:28–34 (“[T]he present invention . . . has an identifier, which allows to individualize the respective portion capsule.”); Ex. 1004 ¶ 25 (discussing the system’s “identification means”); Ex. 1006 ¶ 1 (“The present invention relates in particular to coding supports adapted to store information related to a capsule, capsules associated with/for embedding coding supports, reading and processing arrangements for reading and using such information for preparing a beverage.”); Ex. 1041, code (57) (“The process for controlling the operation of an edible-product making machine [includes] . . . recogni[zing] an” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther
“a) Petitioner’s contentions Petitioner contends that Yoakim, Jarisch ’929, Rossi, and Rapparini are “analogous art in the field of portion capsule beverage extraction, each disclosing an invention that may be applied in automatic coffee/expresso machines.” Pet. 37 (referencing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 1, 2; Ex. 1008 ¶ 1; Ex. 1041, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 220); cf. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner does not dispute this contention at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,554,910 - Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-Fee System GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00239 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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 the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–20 of the ’094 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The express language of the claim, however, does not support using the “central axis” as the measuring point for determining if one object is laterally offset from another. For example, the term “central axis” is not used in the relevant claim phrase and the dictionary definitions of “lateral” relied upon by Petitioner and Mr. Jobin to show the ordinary meaning of the claim term do not suggest that the “central axis” is the reference point for determining whether a first object is “laterally offset” from a second object. As such, we determine that the claim language supports Patent Owner’s construction requiring that the “groove” be “off to the side” of the entire mandrel, and not merely the “central axis” of the mandrel. Prelim. Resp. 54. We must also resolve whether the entire groove is required to be laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel, or only a portion of it. On this point, the claims do not use the term “portion,” but rather specify that the “groove” is “laterally offset from the chamfered mandrel.” Ex. 1001, 14:4– 5, 15:19–20. This suggests that the entire “groove” must be offset from the “chamfered mandrel.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“That argument, however, does not explain why it would have been obvious to laterally offset the groove of Yoakim from the chamfered mandrel. Rather, as demonstrated by Mr. Jobin’s testimony, this argument relates to the general use of a sealing member in a groove, to the extent it was ultimately determined that such a configuration is not expressly disclosed in Yoakim. Id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 296 (“It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to position a sealing member in a groove to solidify the between counter-force portion 161 and engaging portion 157 in Figure 35 of Yoakim is more appropriately identified as the claimed “groove.” Prelim. Resp. 60–61. We need not resolve this issue, however, as Petitioner does not persuasively demonstrate that either potential “groove” is “laterally offset” from the chamfered mandrel. placement of the seal and improve its sealing stability and strength. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize a groove and seal configuration in the brewing head . . . .”) (emphasis added). Even if we interpret the recited portion of the Petition as an argument for placing the groove entirely to the side of the mandrel in Yoakim, the Petition does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to do so. In Figure 35 of Yoakim, the seal and groove, as well as an elastic loading means, act as a valve means to control the level of pressure exerted in the capsule and “optimize interaction of water and the ground coffee particles to obtain a good extraction of the coffee and aroma compounds.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 370–372, 382, 396–398, 434–436, 445; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 286–290; Pet. 63. These are the same beneficial properties relied upon by Petitioner to support the proposed combination, and Petitioner does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yoakim in order to achieve results that are already obtained in the identified embodiment. Pet. 63. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 12 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Yoakim, Jarisch 929, and Rossi.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,542,094 - PTAB · May 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00861 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under any asserted ground.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“Accordingly, the Director instructed us to “determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated that Figure 1 of Godefroy ‘is clear on its face’ or would have reasonably suggested the placement of Godefroy’s sacrificial anode ‘within 10 inches’ of the hot liquid inlet.” Id. at 9. “In making this determination,” the Director instructed us to “consider whether the expert testimony provides sufficient ‘technical detail, explanation, or statements supporting why the expert determines that the feature in question was required or would have been obvious based on the prior art disclosure.’” Id. In addition, although the Director’s decision “is limited to [our] application of Hockerson to the grounds in the Petition involving Godefroy,” the Director instructed us also to “consider what effect, if any, this decision has on the other asserted grounds.” Id. Finally, the Director instructed us to “set forth [our] interpretation” of “the limitation ‘within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.’” Id. at 8 n.4.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“original decision, the Director’s decision, and the evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claim based on any ground asserted in the Petition. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, the Petition is denied, and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“evidence. The challenged claims require that a sacrificial anode be placed within a certain distance—10 inches—of the hot liquid inlet, and, because the inlet has some non-zero size, it might be possible for an anode to be within that distance from some parts, but not from all parts, of the inlet. Accordingly, specifying the center axis of the inlet as the point from which to measure the distance to the anode improves on the plain words of the claim in terms of achieving the claim’s objective of placing the anode within a specified distance of the inlet. Moreover, when discussing the distance from the inlet to the anode, the specification of the ’494 patent uses the language “within 10 inches in any direction of the center axis of the inlet connection.” Ex. 1001, 7:61–64. Thus, the intrinsic evidence supports adopting Petitioner’s claim construction. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Medlin, relies on Petitioner’s proposed construction. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 20 (noting that the construction “within 10 inches of the center axis of [a] hot liquid inlet” “ha[s] been adopted by Petitioner”), 96 (“the sacrificial anodes contained in each of the turbulators 2 would be placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator of Tomosada”), 144 (“A POSITA would understand from Figure 1 that the sacrificial anode 14 is within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet”), 267 (“These teachings would further motivate a POSITA to located the sacrificial anode 12 within 10 inches of a center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”). This support for Petitioner’s proposed construction provides further reason for us to adopt it. Because it is supported by the intrinsic evidence of record, because Patent Owner proposes no alternative construction, and because Petitioner’s expert supports it, we adopt the construction of “within 10 inches of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator” that Petitioner proposes. Thus, we construe this term as “within 10 inches of the center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator.” In other words, when discussing the distance between a hot liquid inlet and a sacrificial anode, we interpret “hot liquid inlet” as “center axis of the hot liquid inlet.”” slip op. at 5
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Inherency may be relied upon in arguing either anticipation or obviousness. Schering, 339 F.3d at 1377 (applying inherency in an anticipation context); Par Pharma. Inc. v. TWI Pharma., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying inherency in an obviousness context). In both cases, however, “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Instead, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements expressly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharma., 773 F.3d at 1195–96. Here, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that, in Godefroy, the sacrificial anode necessarily is placed within 10 inches of the center axis of the hot liquid inlet. Dr. Medlin testifies that Figure 1 of Godefroy shows that “an entirety . . . or at least a significant portion of the sacrificial anode 14, is within 10 inches of a center axis of the inlet.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 144. But we cannot say that Figure 1 of Godefroy is clear on its face, or reasonably suggests, that this is necessarily the case. There are no dimensions shown on Figure 1, so it is unclear from the figure what the diameter of pipe 12 is. If that diameter is larger than 20 inches, then it simply is untrue that “sacrificial anode 14 is . . . necessarily placed within 10 inches of a center axis of a hot liquid inlet to the radiator,” as Dr. Medlin testifies. Id. ¶ 361. As noted above, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Medlin relies on the hot liquid inlet of Godefroy having any particular diameter, and Godefroy is silent as to the diameter of its inlet. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 144, 359–361, 381–382, 406–408; Ex. 1008, 1–15. Moreover, as Patent Owner notes, there is a wide range of sizes of radiators, including automobile radiators, available. Prelim. Resp. 3–5; Exs. 2001–2003. In the absence of any testimony or other evidence that tends to show that radiator inlet pipes necessarily have diameters less than 20 inches, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the diameter of Godefroy’s inlet pipe is small enough to ensure that any portion of the anode necessarily is within 10 inches of the center axis of the inlet.” slip op. at 11
Claim constructioncites Phillips - Canon U.S.A., Inc. / Canon Inc. v. Slingshot Printing LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01541 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9, 10, 20–22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka, with Cleland added for claim 5.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written 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., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Upon review of the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the prior art of record, but note that neither party contends the outcome of this case depends on whether a person of ordinary skill could include an individual with a degree in Materials Science.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“In this case, there was a known desire to increase nozzle pitch in inkjet printheads, Imanaka’s heater and nozzle configuration had been used in the art to achieve this goal, and there is no suggestion that combining the teachings of Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka was beyond the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, we credit the testimony of Mr. Curley that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to use Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch in Hamafuku in order to provide a more compact and higher density printhead. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 404–05. A conclusion of obviousness requires a reasonable expectation of success. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This inquiry asks whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of combining the references to achieve what is claimed in the patent-at-issue. Id. at 1367. The inquiry does not look to whether unclaimed elements or functions would or would not also be achieved, or whether “one would reasonably expect the prior art reference to operate as those references intended once combined.” Id.” slip op. at 42
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“As noted by Patent Owner, the components of Imanaka are made of silicon-based materials, manufactured using thin film technology. PO Resp. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1008, 6:50–61). We are not persuaded, however, that Imanaka’s preference for silicon-based materials would teach away from, or otherwise discourage, one of ordinary skill in the art from combining Hamafuku, Whitman, and Imanaka. Imanaka does not suggest that failure to use silicon-based materials would result in an inoperable device. Rather, Imanaka states that use of silicon-based materials may “improve the mechanical characteristics” and “reliability” of “the liquid discharge head.” Ex. 1008, 6:50–61. Given the considerable increase in printhead nozzle pitch and print resolution provided by Imanaka’s heater and nozzle pitch configuration, we are not persuaded that a failure to capture the same improvement in mechanical characteristics and reliability from the use of silicon-based materials would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from implementing Imanaka’s nozzle pitch in Hamafuku and Whitman or counsel against this modification.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,152,951 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,152,951 - PTAB · May 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00083 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–13, 15, and 16 under all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“be considered only if . . . the petition identified all real parties in interest.” Under our precedent, the Board may, under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a), accept updated mandatory notices as long as the petition would not have been timebarred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) if it had included the real party in interest. Proppant Express Investments, Paper 86, 7. see also Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., 878 F.3d 1364, 1374 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (en banc) (“For § 312(a)(2), the Director can, and does, allow the petitioner to add a real party in interest.”). To determine whether to accept Petitioner’s updated mandatory notices, we look to “whether there have been (1) attempts to circumvent the § 315 bar or estoppel rules, (2) bad faith by the petitioner, (3) prejudice to the patent owner caused by the delay, or (4) gamesmanship by the petitioner.” Proppant Express, Paper 86, 6.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“an Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (“Director’s Memo”)5 to clarify “the [Board’s] current application of Fintiv to discretionary institutions where there is parallel litigation” and to “confirm[ ] that the precedential import of Fintiv is limited to facts of that case.” Director’s Memo 2. The Director’s Memorandum explains that, “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc., the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3 (footnote omitted) (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“the following two-part 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, 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). The Becton, Dickinson factors provide useful insight into how to apply the framework under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Id. at 9 (referencing Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8, 17– 18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton”)). Under the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework, we consider “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to previously were presented to the Office.” Id. at 8. We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id. at 10. Those factors are: (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; and (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. Becton, Paper 8, 17–18. Previously presented art includes art made of record by the Examiner, and art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (“IDS”), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent. Id. at 7–8.” slip op. at 20
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner argues: “It would have been obvious to a POSA to combine Socwell’s treadmill with Magid’s control means to permit only unidirectional movement of the running belt to reduce the risk of a user stepping onto the running belt of the treadmill and losing their balance when the belt moves in the forward direction.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex.1003 ¶ 137); see also Pet. 20–26 (explaining that it was known that injury could occur if a treadmill belt moved in an unexpected direction (citing Ex. 1011, 1:32–67, 2:45–48; Ex. 1013, 1:30–37; Ex. 1019, 3–4; Ex. 1020, 8; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–73, 131–137). Petitioner asserts that Sclater teaches a sprag-type one-way bearing assembly that has an outer race (i.e., first element) that substantially surrounds an inner race (i.e., second element), with a plurality of sprags and rolling elements between the inner race and outer race. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1017, 312). The sprags act as wedges so that torque is transmitted from one race to another in one direction but not the other direction. Ex. 1017, 312, 318; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 171–175. Petitioner argues: “A POSA would have been motivated to substitute Sclater’s one-way sprag-type bearing assembly for Magid’s ratchet-and-pawl one-way clutch mechanism to obtain predictable results, e.g., reduced noise and improved durability, while maintaining the backstopping functionality and resultant safety benefits of Magid.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 141); see also Pet. 27–33 (explaining that ratchet-and-pawl mechanism was known to be noisy and less durable (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 142– 151; Ex. 1017, 303, 316, 320; Ex. 1018, 38–43, 52–53)). and evidence sufficiently disclose limitations 1(f)–(g). d) Conclusion as to claim 1 After considering Petitioner’s evidence and analysis based on the” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,465,005 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00094 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner failed to prove claims 1–22 and 24–40 unpatentable; the obviousness grounds fail to show the claimed communication-link initiation and location information in a bet message.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The ՚266 patent only uses the terms “initiates” and “initiate” in the Abstract and the claims. The Abstract discloses that “the computer initiates a communication link with, and transmits the notification message to,” a communication device. Ex. 1001, code (57). In describing the methods depicted in Figures 9 and 10, the ՚266 patent provides that after detecting a posting for which the user would like to be notified, in step 904 gaming facility computer 30 generates a user notification message and transmits that message to user communication device 20, in real-time or otherwise, as a pager, beeper, pre-recorded, instant, facsimile, and/or email message and/or a telephone call. Ex. 1001, 57:29–35, 58:62–59:15. A general dictionary definition of “initiate” is “to cause or facilitate the beginning of: set going.” Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/initiate (last visited April 3, 2024). Thus, after evaluating the Parties’ claim construction arguments regarding the term, we agree with Patent Owner and construe the term causing or facilitating the beginning of a communication link.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner, as noted above, did not file a Preliminary Response in this proceeding and, therefore, has not contested Petitioner’s proposed definition. For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’266 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’266 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Although Mr. Kitchen testified that it was old and well known as the time of the ՚266 patent to initiate a communication link and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success to configure Garahi’s system to do so, Mr. Kitchen does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to or would have benefited from such a modification of Garahi’s system. Mr. Kitchen testifies that “[h]aving the TPSMS establish the communication link would have been obvious because doing so would allow the sending of wagering information to a user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 139. Yet, Garahi’s system already allows for the sending of wagering information to the user in posting the generated notification message to a “Message Board.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110. The existence of a new message is indicated by a display icon 318 next to the option “Message Board” in an interface 300 having multiple options. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110, Figs. 3, 12, 13. In order to receive the message, the user must first access the Message Board by selecting the related option, after which the information is displayed to the user. Id. That it was well-known in the art to have initiated a communication link does not explain how or why a skilled artisan would have modified Garahi’s system that notifies a user of wagering information by posting on a message board to notify a user by initiating a communication to the user. Simply because a skilled artisan could have modified Garahi’s system to incorporate initiating the communication link does not explain why they would have had reason to do so. See In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). posting or transmitting race information to the user’s Message Board, alone or in combination with the well-known technique of initiating a communication link, would have made it obvious to have the claimed computer initiate a communication link with a first communication device in response to generating the notification message.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Although Mr. Kitchen testified that it was old and well known as the time of the ՚266 patent to initiate a communication link and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success to configure Garahi’s system to do so, Mr. Kitchen does not explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to or would have benefited from such a modification of Garahi’s system. Mr. Kitchen testifies that “[h]aving the TPSMS establish the communication link would have been obvious because doing so would allow the sending of wagering information to a user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 139. Yet, Garahi’s system already allows for the sending of wagering information to the user in posting the generated notification message to a “Message Board.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110. The existence of a new message is indicated by a display icon 318 next to the option “Message Board” in an interface 300 having multiple options. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89, 107, 110, Figs. 3, 12, 13. In order to receive the message, the user must first access the Message Board by selecting the related option, after which the information is displayed to the user. Id. That it was well-known in the art to have initiated a communication link does not explain how or why a skilled artisan would have modified Garahi’s system that notifies a user of wagering information by posting on a message board to notify a user by initiating a communication to the user. Simply because a skilled artisan could have modified Garahi’s system to incorporate initiating the communication link does not explain why they would have had reason to do so. See In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015). posting or transmitting race information to the user’s Message Board, alone or in combination with the well-known technique of initiating a communication link, would have made it obvious to have the claimed computer initiate a communication link with a first communication device in response to generating the notification message.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,147,266 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,147,266 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00093 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–20 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that the asserted combinations rendered the claims obvious, including the required location information in a bet message.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA,” “PHOSITA,” or “skilled artisan”) “would be a person having a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’341 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’341 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Parties construe certain claim language. Pet. 5–7; PO Resp. 14–18; Pet. Reply 1–5. In this proceeding, resolving the Parties’ patentability dispute does not require construing any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to include McNutt’s location data “with” Garahi’s bet message, i.e., wagering data comprising the type and desired amount of wager. Pet. 30. However, Petitioner has not explained why a skilled artisan would modify Garahi’s bet message to include the location data of McNutt. Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would do so “to be able to discern the legality of a placed bet as McNutt discloses if a user of Garahi’s system moves to a wager-prohibitive location, e.g., the state of Oklahoma.” Pet. Reply 14 (citing Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 154–156; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111, 114). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves, inasmuch as Garahi already discloses obtaining” and using the location of the user to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 40; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to add location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Further, Petitioner has not shown a reason outside of hindsight. The ՚341 patent specifically provides that transmitting “information regarding the position or location of the first device or second device” is for “determin[ing] if the bet is allowed or disallowed using position or location information of the first device or the second device.” Ex. 1001 code (57); see also id. at 6:59–66, 16:22–31, 80:10–81:4, Fig. 20A (discussing process for determining whether the bet is allowed based on the user’s location). To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and McNutt teaches location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by claim 1. Thus, the preponderance of evidence does not show that the prior art would have made it obvious to have the bet message comprise the location information.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,043,341 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,043,341 - Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00092 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed location information in a bet message or a sufficient reason to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’920 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’920 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We find no claim term requires express construction, because, for the reasons provided below, resolving the Parties’ patentability dispute in this case does not require construing any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“information of the user telephone equipment to verify that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal,” but Petitioner acknowledges that “Garahi does not specify exactly how or when this verification [that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal] occurs or whether the location information is transmitted to the TPSMS with the wagering data.” Id. at 40. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s suggestion that there is ambiguity as to whether Garahi may include position or location information in its “wagering data,” the evidence advanced by Petitioner is unequivocal on this point. When asked whether Garahi, alone, discloses a bet message that contains position or location information, Mr. Kitchen testified on behalf of Petitioner that “Garahi certainly doesn’t.” Ex. 2001, 140:19–141:8; see also Pet. Reply 18 (stating that Mr. Kitchen testified “only that ‘Garahi certainly doesn’t’ disclose the transmission of location information with a bet”) (citing Ex. 2001, 139:12–141:5); Ex. 2001, 124:3–7 (Mr. Kitchen confirming that Garahi does not disclose everything in “element 1(c)(iii)”). Petitioner, accordingly, relies on McNutt, in combination with Garahi, and asserts that “it would have been obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured “Garahi to include the user communication device’s location information in the wagering data (i.e., the bet message) as provides no persuasive evidence that McNutt teaches including “location information” in “wagering data” that corresponds to a “bet message.” To the contrary, Mr. Kitchen testified that “McNutt does not disclose a bet message,” and therefore, does not, alone, teach including location information in the wagering data as a part of a bet message. Instead, as Mr. Kitchen explains, Petitioner’s argument is premised on combining “location which is obtained by McNutt at the institution of the bet” with the wagering data transmitted by Garahi. See Ex. 2001, 136:8–24.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“combination in regard to the bet message limitation, and we recognize that asserted prior art must not be considered in isolation, but for all that it teaches in the asserted combination, missing from Petitioner’s contentions is any persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include position or location information based on McNutt in the wagering data of Garahi that Petitioner contends corresponds to a “bet message.” There is no persuasive evidence that the mere fact that McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have taught or suggested including that location information with the wagering data of Garahi in a single “bet message,” as required by the Challenged Claims. To the contrary both Garahi and McNutt describe systems that first determine whether a bet may be placed from a location before allowing a user to transmit wagering data corresponding to “information regarding a bet to be place.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 50; Ex. 1006 ¶ 111, Fig. 12; Ex. 2001, 135:3–25, 137:11–22 (Mr. Kitchen testifying that in McNutt, the location information is obtained at the creation of the bet, i.e., when the user initiates the wager creation process, and allows or prevents access to the gambling apparatus). Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have done so to have been able to “discern the legality of a placed bet as McNutt discloses if a user of Garahi’s system moves to a wager-prohibitive location.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173, 175, 176; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 111, persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves, inasmuch as Garahi already discloses obtaining location information” and using that information to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to be obtained by adding location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Petitioner has not shown a sufficient reason supported by a preponderance of the evidence to modify Garahi based on the teachings of McNutt, outside of hindsight based on the disclosures of the ’920 patent, which, itself, explains that a determination of whether a bet is allowed or disallowed is based on the position or location of the user communication device having been transmitted as part of a bet message with information regarding a bet to be placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 59:16–47, 94:53–95:5. In sum, we find that a preponderance of the evidence fails to show that Garahi and McNutt, in combination with Stadelmann, teaches or suggests including position or location information in a bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims. To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 9,965,920 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,965,920
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.