• Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 23, 2019 · IPR2018-00180 · APJ Kamran Jivani · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–7, 9–16, and 18 are unpatentable over Hwang or Hwang and Balakrishnan; claim 17 was not shown unpatentable over Hwang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Although the parties formulate slightly differently their respective assessments of the skill level, neither party disputes directly the other’s assessment nor makes any arguments related to the assessments. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. The ’221 patent states its disclosure “relates, in general, to integrated circuits and, more particularly, to power converter integrated circuits.” Ex. 1001, 1:9–11. In view of the foregoing, we adopt Patent Owner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Further, this level of ordinary skill is reflected by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “construction must begin with the words of the claims themselves.”); In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)) (“As with any claim construction analysis, we begin with the claim language.”). None of the challenged claims (nor even unchallenged claim 8) recites the claimed disabling or terminating occurs in response to the detect signal independent of other circuit conditions or in response only to the detect signal. See Ex. 1001, 12:5–14:36. For instance, independent claim 4 merely recites, “wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 12:49–51. Independent claim 7 similarly recites, “wherein the gating circuit disables the drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Id. at 13:11–13. Independent claim 9 discloses only, “a first comparator . . . having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” Id. at 13:27–30. Finally, independent claim 15 requires, “comparing the error signal to a reference signal . . . to terminate the step of generating in response to the error signal.” Id. at 14:21–23. Therefore, the plain language of the challenged claims does not, standing alone, support adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “testimony from their respective declarants on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand “in response to” as requiring “independent of other circuit conditions.” Compare Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1) with PO Resp. 14–15, 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42, 44–45.) and Sur-Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 45). Patent Owner further directs our attention to a single sentence of deposition testimony in which Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Szepesi appears to agree with Patent Owner’s construction by stating, in the context of claim 9, that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2003, 44:16– 45:1). Petitioner rebuts Patent Owner’s arguments by identifying additional deposition testimony and statements made in a second declaration offered by Dr. Szepesi opposing Patent Owner’s construction. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 18–21, 26–30; Ex. 2003, 43:16–45:1). For instance, immediately before the statement Patent Owner cites, Dr. Szepesi testified: Q: “So is it your opinion that an output for disabling the pulse generator must disable the pulse generator regardless of the other conditions in the circuit?” . . . A: “I don't understand your question. I said disabling the pulse generator means that the output of the pulse generator which is providing the pulses to the gate of the main switch, those pulses are disabled. That’s what it means in my opinion in this context.” Ex. 2003, 43:24–44:9. And, in his supplemental declaration, Dr. Szepesi states: As a first matter, I opined during my deposition that “an output disabling a pulse generator” means that “the output signal of this first comparator disables the output pulses driving the gate of that independent of anything else.” But, at the time of my deposition I had not done a focused claim construction analysis of the limitation “a first comparator […] having an output for disabling the pulse generator.” This is because I hadn’t anticipated there being a dispute relevant to the validity analysis in view of what I understood as the plain meaning of the language. Despite the quote that Patent Owner relied upon, I believe now that a POSITA would not understand the claim language to require the first comparator to disable the output pulses independent of anything else. This belief is consistent with my responses to the first two of three successive questions in which I was asked about “disabling the pulse generator.” It is my opinion that the operation of the disclosed embodiment requires the presence of other conditions precedent before the first comparator can disable the drive pulses and this requirement is not excluded by the claim language. Ex. 1016 ¶ 18 (emphasis added). Our reviewing court has made clear that extrinsic evidence “is generally of less significance than the intrinsic record” in matters of claim construction. Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 811 F.3d 455, 462 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, beyond competing declarant testimony, neither party has entered into the record extrinsic evidence, such as dictionary definitions or contemporaneous usage in the art, addressing the scope of “in response to.” Having considered the testimony upon which Patent Owner relies and weighing it against the claim language itself, the Specification’s disclosures set forth above, and the contrary testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we find on balance that it does not warrant departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of “in response to” as Patent Owner urges. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that an inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision”) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Claim 4 further recites, “a control circuit having an input coupled for receiving the detect signal, wherein the control circuit disables the switched drive control signal in response to the detect signal.” Patent Owner’s sole contention with respect to claim 4 is that “[t]he alleged detect signal in Hwang does not satisfy this limitation” because “unlike the ’221 patent, the alleged ‘control circuit’ does not disable the switched drive control signal ‘in response to the detect signal’ independent of other circuit conditions.” PO Resp. 15–16. As discussed above, we decline to import into claim 4 a requirement that the claimed disabling must occur independent of other circuit conditions. See supra Section III.C.1. Because Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction that we rejected above, we are not persuaded that Hwang fails to meet the limitations of claim 4. Rather, having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of independent claim 4, arranged as recited in the claim. Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the Szepesi Declaration, further demonstrates where Petitioner contends each element of dependent claims 5 and 6 is disclosed in Hwang. Pet. 21–24. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis beyond the argument raised with respect to claim 4. See PO Resp. 17. Having reviewed the evidence cited by Petitioner, we agree with Petitioner that Hwang discloses the limitations of dependent claims 5 and 6, arranged as recited in these claims, and we adopt that analysis as our own. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Hwang anticipates claims 4–6.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 6,597,221 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,597,221
• Tomtom, Inc. v. Blackbird Tech, LLC D/B/A Blackbird Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 11, 2019 · IPR2017-02023 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable over Jimenez, Levi, and ordinary-skill knowledge; claims 6–8 were not shown unpatentable because Jimenez did not teach the claimed transmitter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We find the ’212 Patent is directed to data for a particular user (see, e.g., ’212 Patent, Abstract). This conclusion is supported by the Specification. Indeed, all discussion in the ’212 patent is directed to a pedometer for use by and relying on data obtained from an individual user. Thus, the Specification suggests that the term “calibration” should be construed as a process that correlates a user’s stride rate and stride length. The Oral hearing confirms this conclusion. In the Oral Hearing, Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Doshi, responded to a request to identify the calibration and the plurality of calibrations as follows: JUDGE STEPHENS: So what are you pointing at in the 212 patent as being [a] calibration and the plurality of calibrations? MR. DOSHI: That’s in column 5. So at column 5 it says that after a proper warm up the user completes a sample run or walk on the track at normal pace, et cetera, et cetera. So it's saying that here’s S1 and following completion of the first run, so here it’s saying you’re doing different walks at different speeds . . .where you're having the user walk at different walking speeds and measuring their step size as you do that (Trans. 21:1–10; see also Tr. 19:4–7) JUDGE ZADO: Okay. And then so taking that further then, I understand your argument to be that in the 212 patent the runner for the first sample S1 will run at one pace and that’s, according to Petitioner, that's one calibration and then the runner will run at a second pace for the S2 sample and that’s the second calibration, and then the runner will run at a third pace and then that's the S3 sample and then that's a third calibration? Is that Petitioner's argument? MR. DOSHI: Yes 13 (Tr. 22:4–11). Therefore, based on Petitioner’s statements at the Oral Hearing, the term “calibration” should be construed as the process of taking a sample that correlates step rate and step length for an individual.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.), 18 despite Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Caloyannides, opining that the level of ordinary skill would not be so limited as proposed by Mr. Blackadar: I note that although the qualifications Mr. Blackadar describes would qualify one as a PHOSITA in this case, I do not believe the definition of a PHOSITA here would be so limited. The technology of the ‘212 Patent implicates other fields, such as Sports Medicine, Exercise Science, and Physiology. I believe that a bachelor’s degree in one of these fields, or a similar field, with at least two years of practical experience working with pedometers and/or health or fitness trackers or sensors, or an advanced degree in one of these areas, could qualify one as a PHOSITA in this case (Ex. 2001 ¶ 26). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art would mean a “[person having ordinary skill in the art] under Patent Owner’s definition would be more well-informed than Patent Owner’s own expert” (Pet. Reply. 2); however, we do not read Patent Owner’s assertion or Dr. Caloyannides’ testimony as suggested by Petitioner. Rather, we read Dr. Caloyannides’ testimony as expanding the fields of expertise. We do not observe a meaningful difference between the parties’ assessments of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that either assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either assessment. Based on our review of the ’212 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’212 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Mr. Blackadar and Dr. Caloyannides, we adopt and” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, Petitioner has persuaded us that Levi is from the same field of endeavor as the ’212 Patent –– pedometers that count the number of steps taken to calculate distance traveled (see Pet. 20). Specifically, although Levi adds a navigation feature, Levi is directed to a pedometer that, in pertinent part, adjusts step size according to step frequency in order to estimate distance traveled by a user (Levi, 6:6–43). Levi states “[t]he present invention for a ground speed/distance sensor is an improvement over a common hiker’s pedometer” and “[t]he present invention analyzes the frequency of a user’s footsteps to aid in the detection of future footsteps, and further to aid in determining the size of footsteps taken by the user” (Levi, Abstract, 2:57–60, 2:65–67). Similarly, the ’212 Patent is directed to a pedometer and specifically, a pedometer that calculates actual stride lengths of a user based on relative stride rates (’212 Patent, Abstract). Thus, both the ’212 Patent and Levi are from the same field of endeavor –– pedometers or devices that include or rely on pedometers. Furthermore, both Levi and the ’212 Patent are pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved –– accurate distance identification. 44 Patent Owner additionally argues “[t]he different problems addressed” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “A holding of obviousness can be based on a showing that “there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed” (KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Such a showing requires some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. (id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). As admitted by Patent Owner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known a user’s stride length could vary with stride rate at the time of invention (see PO Resp. 52). As noted by Petitioner, Levi discloses using a dynamic step size algorithm that “improve[s] the accuracy of distance 49 measurements of a human footstep sensor” (Pet. Reply 25 (citing Levi, 6:17–21)). We further credit Mr. Blackadar’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Jimenez using Levi’s dynamic step size algorithm, to improve the calculated distances (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 92). Indeed, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Jimenez and Levi to “monitor [ ] the distance traveled more accurately than prior pedometers that calculated distance based on average stride length” (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 90), 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92)). In particular, we find that, given it was known a user’s stride length could vary with stride rate, as admitted by Patent Owner (PO Resp. 52), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to implement a data processor that accounted for this relationship, such as that described in Levi (Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 93–94)).” slip op. at 49

  Patent outcomesUS 6,434,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,434,212
• Facebook, Inc. / Whatsapp Inc. et al. v. Uniloc 2017 LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2019 · IPR2017-01667 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3, 6–8, 10–35, 38, and 39 are unpatentable; claims 4 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeOther

    “Response in each case. IPR2017-01667, Paper 17 (“1667 PO Resp.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 16 (“1668 PO Resp.”). Petitioner4 then filed Replies. IPR2017-01667, Paper 24 (“1667 Reply”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 22 (“1668 Reply”). Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude as Paper 21 in each case (“Mot. Excl.”), and Petitioner filed an Opposition as Paper 24 in each case (“Opp’n”). We held a consolidated oral argument in both proceedings, as well as in related proceeding IPR2017-01428, on August 30, 2018. A transcript of the oral hearing (“Tr.”) has been entered into the record of IPR2017-01667 as Paper 31 and into the record of IPR2017-01668 as Paper 29.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “01668, Paper 6 (“1668 Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted inter partes review pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314 as to all challenged claims. IPR2017-01667, Paper 8 (“1667 Dec. on Inst.”); IPR2017-01668, Paper 8 (“1668 Dec. on Inst.”). During the pendency of the proceedings, Huawei Device Co., Ltd. and LG Electronics, Inc. filed a petition and motion for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667, which we granted. IPR2017-01667, Paper 12. Similarly, Apple Inc. filed petitions and motions for joinder requesting to join IPR2017-01667 and IPR2017-01668, which we also granted. IPR2017- 01667, Paper 29; IPR2017-01668, Paper 27.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “1. Instant Voice Message Independent challenged claims 3, 27, and 38 recite the term “instant voice message.” In particular, claim 3 recites a messaging system that “receives an instant voice message” from one of a plurality of instant voice the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). message client systems, “wherein the instant voice message includes an object field including a digitized audio file.” Claims 27 and 38 recite a client platform system for “generating an instant voice message and a messaging system for transmitting the instant voice message.” Claim 27 further requires an “instant voice messaging application” that “includes a document handler system for attaching one or more files to the instant voice message.” Certain of the challenged dependent claims recite additional limitations concerning, for example, additional fields included in the instant voice message (claims 4–8), storage, deletion, or retrieval of instant voice messages (claims 10, 14, 17, 28, 31), the generation of the instant voice messages (claims 13, 18, 32), encryption/decryption of instant voice messages (claims 19, 33), compression/decompression of instant voice messages (claims 20, 34), effects indicating receipt of instant voice messages (claims 23, 35), and display of instant voice messages (claim 30). Our Institution Decision in IPR2017-01667 noted Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the “instant voice message” centered on the scope of the term. 1667 Dec. on Inst. 18, 22–23. Patent Owner had argued an implied construction in which “instant voice message” encompasses only the voice message. Id. at 19, 23. The parties were invited to brief the claim construction during trial. Id. at 19–20, 23. In its Response in IPR2017-01667, Patent Owner proposed that an “instant voice message” is “an audio file recording voice data.” 1667 PO Resp. 11–13, 15. In particular, Patent Owner relied on the specification’s use of “i.e.” to indicate lexicography in equating the “instant voice message”” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,724,622 mixed
  Claim constructioncites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,724,622
• Pfizer, Inc. / Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2018 · IPR2017-02139 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 25, 29–31, 33, 62–64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 78, 80, and 81 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Petitioner Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. (“Bioepis”) timely submitted a Petition presenting substantially the same challenges as set forth in Pfizer’s Petition along with a request for joinder to IPR2017-01488. IPR2017- 02139. Paper 1. We granted Bioepis’s Petition and associated request for joinder to this case. IPR2017-02139, Paper 11, 6–7.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties propose similar definitions of a person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent. See Pet. 15–16; Prelim. Resp. 18; PO Resp. 18. In our institution decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposal that “[a] person of ordinary skill for the ’213 patent would have had a Ph.D. or equivalent in chemistry, biochemistry, structural biology, or a closely related field, and experience with antibody structural characterization, engineering, and/or biological testing, or an M.D. with practical academic or industrial experience in antibody development.” Dec. 8. Petitioners do not contest this definition in its Reply and we find no reason to revise our earlier determination.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “variable domain,” which appears in claims 4, 33, 62, and 69, to mean “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure.” Prelim. Resp. 18–19; PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner correctly points out that this “construction comes directly from the definition provided in the ’213 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 11:32–38). Petitioners expressly adopt this construction in their Reply. Pet. Reply 5–6. We do not agree, however, that the claims demand a consensus of “all” human immunoglobulins in the literal sense. Indeed, Petitioners point out that “the ‘consensus’ sequence used for the patent variants was generated using the most common residue at each position identified in [Kabat 198711].” Pet. Reply 15 (citations omitted). And though Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Queen 1990 as describing “a consensus framework from many human antibodies,’ not all as in the ’213 patent,’” it presents no argument as to why we should interpret the claim in this manner. 11 Kabat et al., Sequences of Proteins of Immunological Interest: Tabulation and Analysis of Amino Acid and Nucleic Acid Sequences of Precursors, V- Regions, C-Regions, J-Chain, T-Cell Receptor for Antigen, T-Cell Surface Antigens β2-Microglobulin, Major Histocompatibility Antigens, Thy-1 Complement, C-Reactive Protein, Thymopoietin, Post-Gamma Globulin, and α2-Macroblobulin, 41–175 (4th Ed. 1987). Ex. 1052. See PO Resp. 47. Moreover, in a parallel proceeding involving the same patent, Patent Owner did not dispute that the reference to “all sequences” in the patent, “refer[s] to all known sequences and there’s no dispute . . . that was really synonymous with Kabat 1987.” See IPR2017-01374 Paper 82, Tr. 15:4–16:4; see Ex. 1202 ¶ 157; Ex. 2105 ¶¶ 24–25; Ex. 2107 ¶¶ 18–19; Ex. 1198, 56:20–61:24; Ex. 1199, 27:14–28:13, 29:25–36:2, 57:1–58:6, 115:7–17, 165:17–169:9. Indeed, in a similar parallel proceeding, counsel for Patent Owner acknowledged that the term “all human immunoglobulins” refers to “all reasonably available[,] all known at the time of the invention.” IPR2017-01373, Paper 83, 47:21–48:5. Accordingly, we adopt the parties’ proposed construction, with a clarifying modification, specifically, “a human variable domain which comprises the most frequently occurring amino acid residues at each location in all human immunoglobulins of any particular subclass or subunit structure, as set forth in Kabat 1987.”” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient.” In our institution decision, we determined that this claim language “refer[s] to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” Dec. 10–12. Neither party disputes this interpretation. See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 5–6. Consistent with claim 63’s express comparison between the immunogenicity of the claimed humanized antibody and that of its non-human parent, the Specification states that one object of the invention is to “to provide methods for the preparation of antibodies which are less antigenic in humans than non-human antibodies but have desired antigen binding and other characteristics and activities.” Ex. 1001, 4:24–28. The Specification similarly states that embodiments within the scope of the claims have “low immunogenicity,” or are designed to “minimize the potential immunogenicity of the resulting humanized antibody in the clinic.” Id. at 52:54–58, 61:56–61. Moreover, with reference to claim 63 in particular, Patent Owner points to the ’272 application as “explain[ing] that the purpose of humanizing antibodies using its consensus sequence approach is to reduce immunogenicity versus the non-human parent antibody. (Id., 6:24–30, 84:24–30.).” Prelim. Resp. 42 (citing Ex. 2032 (File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 07/715,272 (“the ’272 application”)); see also id. at 38 (indicating that the limitation is satisfied where “[o]nly 1 out of 885 patients experienced an immunogenic response . . . which was a substantial improvement over the murine 4D5 antibody”). In light of the above, we do not alter our prior determination that “[a] humanized antibody which lacks immunogenicity compared to a non-human parent antibody upon repeated administration to a human patient,” refers to a humanized antibody having reduced immunogenicity in a human patient as compared to its non-humanized parent antibody.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,407,213 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,407,213
• Coastal Industries, Inc. v. Shower Enclosures America, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2018 · IPR2017-00573 · APJ Michael W Kim · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11–14, and 16–26 are unpatentable; claims 4, 6, 10, and 15 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 33 and 34 are granted.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention. Pet. 26. Patent Owner sets forth many assertions related to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. PO Resp. 3–14, 20–30; PO Supp. Resp. 15–20. Petitioner responds to those assertions. Pet. Reply 2–4, 9–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15–16. While we will address each of those assertions, as a substantive matter, Petitioner asserts that “PO does not dispute the definition of a PHOSITA, offer a contrary definition, explain how a different definition might affect the Board’s analysis, nor contest the Board’s specific interpretation of the prior art references to put the PHOSITA determination at issue.” Pet. Reply 16–18; Pet. Supp. Reply 15– 16. We agree with that assessment. Moreover, we note that the level of ordinary skill in the art is often reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, as an initial matter, we address Petitioner’s unopposed substantive assertion with respect to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “1. “track members” Independent claims 1, 12, 19, and 22 each recite “track members.”” slip op. at 28

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted

    “B. Patentability of Substitute Claims 33 and 34 Petitioner asserts that various claim limitations are disclosed in the” slip op. at 100

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “701, 702 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that Mr. Poenariu’s testimony is entirely based on his finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, and because Mr. Poenariu did not articulate a sufficient factual basis for his conclusion as to the level of ordinary skill in the art, his entire testimony us unreliable and should be excluded. PO Mot. 5–6. Petitioner responds that Mr. Poenariu discloses more than a sufficient amount of underlying facts on which to base his testimony, and, thus, Patent Owner’s assertions go to weight and not admissibility. Pet. Opp. 6–9. We agree with Petitioner.” slip op. at 105

  Patent outcomesUS 7,174,944 mixed
  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,174,944
• Technical Consumer Products, Inc. / Nicor Inc. et al. v. Lighting Science Group Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01280 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 3 and 4 were not shown unpatentable over Zhang, Soderman, and Silescent.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “(collectively, “Lead Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,967,844 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’844 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Patent Owner, Lighting Science Group Corp. (“Patent Owner”), did not file a Preliminary Response to the Petition. We determined that the information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Lead Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted this proceeding on November 1, 2017, as to claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–24 of the ’844 patent. Paper 10 (“Dec. on Inst.”).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ definitions of the level of skill differ in minor respects, including the number of years of experience and whether or not a 5 Patent Owner has not put forth any evidence or argument related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness. background in chemical engineering should be included. At his deposition, Dr. Bretschneider testified that he included a degree in chemical engineering in his definition because that degree confers expertise in heat transfer. Ex. 1023, 37:14–22. We find this testimony persuasive. Regarding the difference in years of experience, both declarants agree that three years of experience is appropriate. For these reasons, we define the person of ordinary skill in the art as having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, physics, or a related field and three years of experience in designing LED lighting products or fixtures. We are satisfied that this definition comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’844 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner (Pet. Reply 8–9), however, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have read Chou as narrowly as Patent Owner contends. Not only does Chou state that its fixture “may be configured to be installed into a recessed can housing having other geometries,” but also “recessed housings . . . developed with different geometries.” Ex. 1012, 3:65–4:7 (emphasis added). In light of this express teaching in Chou, we do not agree that Chou’s teachings are confined to 5- and 6-inch can lights, or even can lights in general. Junction boxes represent another geometry that can serve as a recessed housing for an LED light fixture. See Ex. 1023, 30:17–31:7 (Dr. Bretschneider testifying that, by 2009, LED light fixtures attached to junction boxes were known with “certain parts” inside the box). In addition, the fact that certain figures of Chou might depict a junction box external to a can light does not mean that junction boxes are excluded from the universe of “recessed housings” contemplated in the quotation above. In addition, Patent Owner contends Petitioner has provided no reason or motivation to combine Wegner with Chou. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner also contends an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have combined Wegner with Chou because Wegner pertains to a light with a tall reflector, which must be installed in a can light fixture (and not a junction box). Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–75, 133–137). Yet Petitioner only cites Wegner for its teaching of removing an Edison base from an LED light fixture to facilitate direct wiring, and not for anything to do with reflectors. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 53; Ex. 1016, 11:3–32). As such, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Wegner’s light reflectors amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, which is not the test for obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.”). We are persuaded that, based on Wegner, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have known to remove the Edison base of Chou’s fixture regardless of the type of reflector and housing used in Wegner’s fixture. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. Regarding motivation, Petitioner posits a market-based rationale, namely, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make a version of Chou’s luminaire to fit nominally sized junction boxes to serve the new construction market. Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 54). Dr. Coleman testifies that the Edison base would have been removed to make Chou’s luminaire work in a junction box. Ex. 1002 ¶ 53. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan wanting to modify Chou for use in junction boxes would have known to make this modification.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,967,844 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,844
• Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v. Resmed LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 23, 2018 · IPR2017-00501 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 61–64 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 1–60, 65, and 66 were not shown unpatentable under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “(Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1–66 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,027,556 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’556 patent”). Patent Owner, ResMed Ltd. (“ResMed”), filed a Preliminary Patent Owner Response to the Petition. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We instituted trial on claims 61–64 and 66 only. See Paper 8 (“Dec. on Inst.” or “Institution Decision”), 42–43 (instituting trial on claims 61–64 and 66 on four of the twelve asserted grounds); cf. Pet. 9–10 (listing the twelve asserted grounds).” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenOther

    “D. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability In inter partes reviews, a petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail in this proceeding, Fisher must support its challenge by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). Accordingly, all of our findings and conclusions are based on a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petition, how Barnett teaches using a different material that is more rigid than silicone for neck 46 and ribs 56. The Petition lays out certain factual statements, but draws no conclusion from those statements, leaving us to somehow connect the dots.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed

    “patent . . . that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions.” KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418. Importantly, “obviousness must be determined in light of all the facts, and . . . a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added); see also Winner Int’l, 202 F.3d at 1349 n.8 (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). Accordingly, we weigh Fisher’s and ResMed’s evidence with respect to whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Barnett with Ogden’s teaching of a main body of a cushion module using a material that is more” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,027,556 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,027,556
• Stingray Digital Group Inc. v. Music ChoiceSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2018 · IPR2017-01191 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–9 are unpatentable as obvious over Hudson and Dwek; claims 5 and 10–20 were not shown unpatentable because the references do not disclose the genre channel limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art pertaining to the ’045 patent, at the time of invention, “would have had at least an undergraduate degree in computer science or electrical engineering, or equivalent experience and, in addition, two years of experience in distribution of digital audio and video via networks.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 11–17). Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 6. In considering the issues presently before us, we have adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed identification of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’045 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “B. CLAIM INTERPRETATION “A claim in an unexpired patent that will not expire before a final written decision is issued shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142 (2016) (affirming that USPTO has statutory authority to construe claims according to Rule 42.100(b)). When applying that standard, we interpret the claim language as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, and absent any special definition, we give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only terms which are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In the Decision on Institution, we instructed the parties to brief the meaning of “a message comprising information indicating that the user desires to view the video identified by the video identifier” as recited in claims 1 and 6; and “in response to receiving the message” as recited in claims 1 and 6. Dec. 24. The parties agreed upon the express meaning of both phrases, PO Resp. 6–7; Reply 2, which we adopt for the purposes of this Final Written Decision. We discern no need to interpret any other phrase expressly for the purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Quanta Comput. Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Moreover, a reference “must [be] considered for all it taught, disclosures that diverged and taught away from the invention at hand as well as disclosures that pointed towards and taught the invention at hand.” Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 296 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). A reference does not teach away “if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.” DePuy, 567 F.3d at 1327 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201). But even if a reference is not found to teach away, its statements regarding preferences are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine that reference with another reference. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1051 n.15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) (noting that, even if a reference “does not teach away, its statements regarding users preferring other forms of switches are relevant to a finding regarding whether a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the slider toggle in” that reference with the invention of a second reference). Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Against this background, we determine that Hudson does not teach away from incorporating the ability to customize playlists as described by Dwek. Hudson never expressly mentions permitting a user to customize its storyboards much less disparages doing so. Dr. Shamos testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Hudson’s advantages of providing links to ancillary content along with primary content would be further enhanced if users also had Dwek’s ability to customize the primary content they were viewing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–46. Dr. Russ’s conclusions otherwise fail to consider each of Hudson and Dwek as a whole, but instead focus narrowly upon specific implementations of delivering media in each reference. Ex. 2109 ¶¶ 49–52. When Hudson and Dwek are considered as a whole, the similarities in their goals suggests their combination. For example, Hudson, by incorporating Headings by reference,3 recognizes that its system is compatible with streaming a wide variety of content including “movies, music videos, educational content, television shows, games, live events, and advertising.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Similarly, Dwek recognizes that its system may deliver more than music; it may also “deliver video or other streaming multimedia content.” Ex. 1006, 4:10:12. Patent Owner argues that because Dwek describes joining a customized, shared channel “in progress,” Dwek’s system only broadcasts streams in a manner akin to live radio. PO Resp. 17. However, Dwek also contemplates starting playback of its user-defined shared channels at the beginning of the user-defined playlist. Id. at 11:27– 33. Based on our review of Hudson and Dwek, we determine that they both describe systems in which users have some degree of control over what content they consume and when they consume it. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 37–40, Figure 4; Ex. 1006, 1:31–50. We also determine that both systems are designed to facilitate commerce related to the content. Ex. 1004 ¶ 41, 44; Ex. 1006, 3:28–57. Based upon our consideration of Hudson and Dwek as a a whole, we credit the testimony of Dr. Shamos over that of Dr. Russ and conclude that Hudson does not teach away from permitting a user to slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “storyboards much less disparages doing so. Dr. Shamos testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that Hudson’s advantages of providing links to ancillary content along with primary content would be further enhanced if users also had Dwek’s ability to customize the primary content they were viewing. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–46. Dr. Russ’s conclusions otherwise fail to consider each of Hudson and Dwek as a whole, but instead focus narrowly upon specific implementations of delivering media in each reference. Ex. 2109 ¶¶ 49–52. When Hudson and Dwek are considered as a whole, the similarities in their goals suggests their combination. For example, Hudson, by incorporating Headings by reference,3 recognizes that its system is compatible with streaming a wide variety of content including “movies, music videos, educational content, television shows, games, live events, and advertising.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Similarly, Dwek recognizes that its system may deliver more than music; it may also “deliver video or other streaming multimedia content.” Ex. 1006, 4:10:12. Patent Owner argues that because Dwek describes joining a customized, shared channel “in progress,” Dwek’s system only broadcasts streams in a manner akin to live radio. PO Resp. 17. However, Dwek also contemplates starting playback of its user-defined shared channels at the beginning of the user-defined playlist. Id. at 11:27– 33. Based on our review of Hudson and Dwek, we determine that they both describe systems in which users have some degree of control over what content they consume and when they consume it. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 37–40, Figure 4; Ex. 1006, 1:31–50. We also determine that both systems are designed to facilitate commerce related to the content. Ex. 1004 ¶ 41, 44; Ex. 1006, 3:28–57. Based upon our consideration of Hudson and Dwek as a a whole, we credit the testimony of Dr. Shamos over that of Dr. Russ and conclude that Hudson does not teach away from permitting a user to 3 Ex. 1004 ¶ 27. customize its content storyboards in a manner akin to Dwek’s customization of musical playlists.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 9,351,045 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,351,045
• Alarm.Com Inc. v. Vivint, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 10, 2017 · IPR2016-00161 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 9, 10, 14, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 17, 18, 22, 25, 26, and 28 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combination did not teach the claimed normal status message.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “patent “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or computer engineering (or equivalent experience) and at least two years of experience in supervisory and control systems.” Pet. 8. Alarm.com’s declarant, Mr. Zatarain, assumes this skill level assessment in his declaration and opines that he was a person of ordinary skill, under this assessment, at the time of the invention. Ex. 1107 ¶ 11. Vivint does not dispute Alarm.com’s assessment in its Response, but we note that Vivint’s declarant, Mr. Denning, opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’654 patent would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science and at least four years of experience in remote monitoring and control systems,” with the possibility of less experience being compensated for by more education. Ex. 2010 ¶ 15. We do not discern a material difference between the assessments advanced by the declarants, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its assessment of the level of skill in the art. Moreover, each party’s declarant appears to meet or exceed both parties’ assessments (see Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 2–4, Attachment A; Ex. 2011), and either assessment of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’654 patent and the asserted prior art. We adopt Mr. Zatarain’s assessment and apply it to our obviousness evaluation below, but note that our conclusions would be the same under Mr. Denning’s assessment.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “skill in the art would have had sufficient reason to combine the teachings of Levac with Shetty and Garton, we note that the Supreme Court has held that an obviousness evaluation “cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether Alarm.com has set forth “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. When describing examples of what may constitute a sufficient rationale to combine, the Supreme Court elaborated that, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. After considering the record in its entirety, we are persuaded that Alarm.com’s rationale for combining the teachings of Shetty, Levac, and Garton suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. When, as here, a technique has been used to improve one device (i.e., Levac’s messaging system creates an .msa file that may incorporate a particular message and a list of destination parameters, such as a recipient site location, required for transmitting a message to a particular destination), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that it would improve similar devices in the same way (i.e., using the aforementioned disclosure in Levac to improve Shetty’s system), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Pet. 31–33; Ex. 1107 ¶¶ 125–128; see also In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Our reviewing court has recognized “[t]he normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.”). Apart from generally asserting that neither Alarm.com nor Mr. Zatarain provides the “what,” “how,” and “why” for the asserted combination of Shetty and Levac (see PO Resp. 51–52), Vivint does not present credible evidence that combining the teachings of these references in the manner proposed by Alarm.com would have been uniquely challenging or otherwise beyond the skill level of an ordinarily skilled artisan.” slip op. at 49

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Mintz to support its argument that Alarm.com must look to the problem solved by the ’654 patent in its obviousness evaluation, we do not agree. In KSR, the Supreme Court made clear that it is error to “hold[] that courts and [petitioners] should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420. The Supreme Court explained that [t]he question is not whether the combination was obvious to the patentee but whether the combination was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. Id. Here, as we explain above, Alarm.com provides sufficient reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Shetty allows a user to remotely access user profile database 106 via user interface 110 to configure profiles stored therein. See Pet. 21–23; Pet. Reply 14–16. Alarm.com’s reasoning in this regard is directed specifically to the subject matter at issue in independent claims 9 and 27, and Alarm.com provides sufficient evidence in the record to support its reasoning. As a result, instead of presenting reasoning that is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, as asserted by Vivint, Alarm.com has articulated sufficient reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to extend Shetty’s teaching of user access to user profile database 106 via user interface 110 to provide for remote configuration of the profiles stored therein.” slip op. at 42

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Alarm.com’s explanations and supporting evidence as to how the combination of Shetty and Garton teaches or suggests the remaining limitations recited in independent claims 9 and 27, nor does Vivint address the reasons provided by Alarm.com as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Shetty and Garton. See generally PO Resp. 14–42. We have reviewed Alarm.com’s explanations and supporting evidence in this regard, and we are persuaded that the combination of Shetty and Garton teaches or suggests each such limitation (see Pet. 17–23, 29–31, 33–37, 40–41, and evidence cited therein), as well as that Alarm.com’s rationale for combining the teachings of Shetty and Garton suffices as articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (id. at 31–33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 128). (4) Conclusion We conclude that Alarm.com has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of independent claims 9 and 27 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Shetty.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 6,462,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,462,654
• Symantec Corp. / Blue Coat Systems LLC v. Finjan, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01892 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 6 are unpatentable over Swimmer under § 103; claims 5, 10, 11, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “consideration of the Preliminary Response (Paper 7) of Patent Owner, Finjan, Inc., we instituted a trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) with respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 and subsequently joined Case IPR2016-00890 with the instant case. Paper 9 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”); see also Paper 30 (copy of decision instituting inter partes review in Case IPR2016-00890 and granting motion for joinder; also filed as IPR2016-00890, Paper 8).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “1 Case IPR2016-00890 has been joined with the instant proceeding.” slip op. at 1

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We determine that the differences in the declarants’ assertions are negligible and that both assessments are consistent with the ’494 patent and the referenced prior art. For the purposes of the analysis below, we adopt Dr. Medvidovic’s assessment.” slip op. at 22

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “As explained in Section III.B.4.a.i, supra, we are persuaded by Dr. Hall-Ellis’s testimony that Swimmer was publicly available at least as early as December 1995 and is, accordingly, prior art at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a),6 as well as that Exhibit 1005 represents an authentic 6 As further mentioned in Section II.B, supra, we determined in our Decision on Institution in Case IPR2016-00159 that the ’494 patent is not entitled to any earlier priority date than the November 6, 1997, filing date of the ’388 application, based on the record then before us in that case. See IPR2016- 00159, slip op. at 10–13 (PTAB May 13, 2016) (Paper 8). Because that date is more than one year after December 31, 1995, Swimmer would also be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on the December 1995 publication date. copy of Swimmer and Exhibit 1010 represents an authentic copy of the Virus Bulletin Proceedings within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Further, Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides that evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Both the Federal Circuit and the Board have recognized that there is a “low threshold for relevancy.” See, e.g., OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1407 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech Int’l Holdings, Inc., Case IPR2014-00025, slip op. at 44 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2015) (Paper 45). There is no question on this record that Swimmer is relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims in this case. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 1005 and 1010.” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 8,677,494 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,494

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.