• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Fortinet, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · May 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00099 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–14, 16, 17, 21, and 22 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2023-00673.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons provided below, we determine that Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’436 patent is unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2023).” slip op. at 2

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

    “compressed, or use security protocols, then the packets transit the packet engine. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 49, 51, 53). Patent Owner argues that only the SA parameter association task in Pham may be offloaded. Prelim. Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38, 51). Patent Owner’s argument here implies that the filtering function remains at the ingress processor and that some packets will be filtered and never reach the packet engine. See id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 38); Ex. 1004 ¶ 38 (“In the preferred embodiments of the present invention, the ingress processors 30, 34 are tasked with filtering and routing functions . . . .”). The statement Patent Owner relies on is not in the same section as the one Petitioner relies on. In other words, it does not appear on this record that we can limit the disclosure of paragraph 51 based on the statements in paragraph 38. On this record, we are not persuaded that only the SA parameter association task can be offloaded. As Pham notes, tasks can be moved between processors to perform load balancing. Ex. 1004 ¶ 54. We see no disclosure that prevents certain tasks from being load balanced or otherwise tasked to the security processor.” slip op. at 16

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

    “find them persuasive on this record. Id. at 32–33. At a high level, Patent Owner’s arguments are that Petitioner’s modification to Pham would “increase[] complexity and resources.” Id. at 33. On this record, this argument is unpersuasive because even if the addition of Wu’s intrusion detection system was somehow more complex, the reason to combine it is to gain certain beneficial features. See, e.g., Pet. 30–31. Patent Owner’s arguments do not show that the alleged increase in complexity would somehow dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from including these beneficial features. See, e.g., Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”) (alteration in original); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine”).” slip op. at 17

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “based on the related district court matters identified above. Opp. Mot. Join 4–12. Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3. Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the copending district court litigation the specific ground asserted in the petition, or any other ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., grounds that could have been raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patent or printed publications)” (Reply Mot. Join 4–5), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,685,436
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00074 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because the cited May references did not sufficiently disclose or guide a skilled artisan to the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’061 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner states that “that no term of the ’061 patent requires construction to resolve the challenges in this Petition.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51) (footnote omitted). Patent Owner does not argue for any express claim constructions. See PO Resp. Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “represents the inventors’ own work, and thus the May Thesis is not prior art to the ’061 patent. PO Resp. 14–15. The May Thesis is authored by Chad May, who is a listed inventor of the ’061 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’061 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on the July 1, 2002 priority date. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that the Challenged Claims are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., July 1, 2002. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to the Challenged Claims under 35 U.S.C. §102(b).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 39–40 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of TNS9’s HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 143–156. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes, such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 156, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisaged” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 39–40.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,058,061 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,058,061
• Bluebird Bio, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00070 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 19, and 22 were not shown unpatentable because the May Thesis was not prior art and the May Article and May Abstract did not establish the claimed LCR fragments.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s uncontested definition of one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable and consistent with the ’179 patent and the prior art of record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Based upon our review of the current record, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artNot shown unpatentable

    “the ’179 patent. Id.; Ex. 1004, 3; Ex. 1001, code (75). Thus, the May Thesis represents the work of one of the ’179 inventors and is therefore ineligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) for challenged claims 1, 19, and 22. See, e.g., In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 454–455 (CCPA 1982) (a prior publication by inventors or a subset of the inventors does not qualify as prior art under 102(a)). With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we find that the May Thesis is ineligible as prior art, even assuming that claims 1, 19, and 22 are not entitled to receive benefit of an earlier filing date. Petitioner provides evidence that the May Thesis was publicly available as of November 26, 2001. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 1–26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 60). Patent Owner does not dispute that evidence. Based on the undisputed November 26, 2001 public availability date, the May Thesis represents a disclosure less than one year before the asserted effective filing date, i.e., the July 1, 2002, for claims 1, 19, and 22 challenged with this reference. Based on that timing and because the disclosure was made by the inventor, the May Thesis is not available as prior art to challenged claims 1, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b). Petitioner has not established that the May Thesis is prior art to claims” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “summarized above, we determine that the May Article fails to disclose the restriction sites surrounding the BstXI and SnaBI HS2-, BamHI and HindIII HS3-, or BamHI and BanII HS4-spanning nucleotide fragments, as required by the challenged claims. According to Petitioner, that limitation is inherently disclosed by the May Article’s description of the lengths of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments in the TNS9 vector and its depiction of those fragments on a map of the LCR. Pet. 28. To support its inherency argument, Petitioner relies on knowledge in the art, i.e., the availability of the entire map of the LCR region, and the availability of restriction enzymes, including BstX1, SnaBI, BamHI, HindIII, and BanII. Id. at 30–31 (citing Kennametal, 780 F.3d at 1381–83). Based on that combined information, Petitioner contends that a POSA would “have been able to map all of the possible restriction sites in the regions flanking the cores of HS2, HS3, and HS4.” Id. Petitioner asserts further that “[g]iven the May Article’s disclosure regarding the size and location of [TNS9’s] HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments, a POSA would have placed these fragments onto the restrictionsite map of the LCR” that was available at the time, and would have identified only six possible combinations of restriction enzyme fragments, including the one recited in claim 1. Id. Upon closer inspection, however, we appreciate from the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bungert, that the process involved in arriving at those six possible combinations is predicated on numerous assumptions guiding a number of exacting steps to be performed in order to achieve the claimed LCR fragment. According to Dr. Bungert, the process for making the claimed LCR fragment would have involved the steps of (a) placing fragments that are the disclosed size of the HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments from the TNS9 vector in the May Article onto the known restriction-site map of the LCR; (b) comparing those fragments to the “‘drawn to scale’ map” in the May Article; and then (c) identifying various fragments and determining which ones are consistent with the May Article’s description and match up with the fragments on the May Article’s drawn to scale map. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117. To identify the fragments consistent with the May Article’s description, it was necessary for Dr. Bungert to use certain assumptions that exclude unfavorable enzymes such as using a range of ± 20 bp in order to identify fragments with lengths that are within 20 bp of the fragments reported in the May Article. Id. In view of the number of assumptions and steps required to get from what is disclosed in the May Article to arrive at the alleged “six possible LCRs (i.e., combination of HS2, HS3, and HS4 fragments based on the TNS9 LCR disclosed in the May Article)—including the LCR recited in claim 1,” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated that fragments having the restriction sites recited in claim 1 would have been “at once envisage[d]” by a skilled artisan as argued by Petitioner. Pet. 30–31.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 7,541,179 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,541,179
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01563 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Yong and Xavier because the Board found the proposed server-function combination and replication of the virtual terminal sales application obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field or equivalent coursework or experience, and one to two years of experience with mobile device applications and retail POS systems,” also noting that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 33). “For purposes of the IPR proceedings related to the ’435 Patent only, [Patent Owner] does not dispute this definition.” PO Resp. 8. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proffered level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’435 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with the parties’ claim construction. Grammatically, within each of claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, each recitation of “the server” refers to the same “server.” Thus, according to these claims’ plain meaning, each and every recitation of “the server” refers to the same server. See Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 64 F.4th 1311, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining claim language reciting element with definite article refers to same element previously recited) (citing Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Harari v. Lee, 655 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Likewise, according to the plain meaning of claims 10, 12, and 14, each and every recitation of “the server” in these claims refers to the same server. We construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 as referring to the same server. And we construe every recitation of “the server” in claims 10, 12, and 14 as referring to the same server.” slip op. at 14

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

    “parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that it would have been “obvious to combine functions of any [of] its servers 200, 400, 500 into the same server.” E.g. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. It is undisputed that “[i]t was well-understood in the art at the time of the Critical Date that functionality of different servers can be combined in the same server.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 413); see generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply. The Petition persuades us that it would have been obvious to implement this known approach in Yong’s system, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments about intentionally keeping servers separate. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; PO Resp. 2–6, 22–25, 28–40; Pet. Reply 1–2, 7–12; PO Sur-reply 1–2, 5–15. The Petition and its evidence demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying Yong’s disclosure by combining the functionalities of the servers would have produced one logical variation on Yong’s system. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460. As the Petition and Dr. Shamos note, Yong’s servers cooperatively perform functions of Yong’s system by communicating with one another and other system components, such that consolidating the functionality into the same server would result in that server performing all of the same functions that Yong’s servers do separately. Pet. 8–9, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–132, 412–414, 436, 442, 452, 460; See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (combination of known devices according to established functions normally obvious); id. at 417 (“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”). The Petition and its evidence also persuade us that such a modification would have been well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. E.g., Pet. 10, 18–19, 22–23, 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 30–34, 38–42, 412, 414. As Dr. Shamos notes, Yong itself indicates that the system could use different components on its server side, disclosing that “[a] commercial transaction system (e.g., a commerce system) according to the present invention is configured to include a mobile communication terminal 100, a store POS system 200, and a mobile telecommunication system 300. More preferably, a commercial transaction server 400 and a payment server 500 may be further included.” Ex. 1010, 12:9–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 412. On the whole, the Petition persuades us that combining the functions of Yong’s servers would have involved no more than an obvious application of a known approach with predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–19 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 15–16 anticipated or obvious and claims 17–19 obvious; it did not reach the Yong-Xavier-Cason ground for claim 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the ’435 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 by those sources is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “technologies, [and he admits] that his only retail technology experience is limited to MBA case studies from the early 1990s.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1022, 15:20–22, 16:3–7, 17:22–23; Ex. 2010). Based on this, Petitioner advances that we “should afford little weight to Dr. Williams’ testimony.” Id. Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. at 3. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education’ in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the ’435 patent’s Specification supports Petitioner’s position. As Petitioner argues, the Specification’s disclosure that “[u]ser identification information may include a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” conveys that “a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” is a short, non-exhaustive list of user identification information according to the ’435 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:2–4 (emphasis added). This comports with the plain meaning of “user identification information,” which seemingly would refer to information that identifies a user. Consistent with this, the claim language does not convey any meaning of “user identification information” other than its plain meaning. See, e.g., id. at 24:7–9. Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s suggestion that limitation 16a’s “user identification information” requires a username, a password, or both. PO Resp. 72; PO Sur-reply 30. Instead, we conclude that “user identification information” encompasses information that identifies a user.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenPetitioner expert creditedUnpatentable

    “Weighing all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has shown that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j’s actions by the same server, specifically payment server 130. For example, Petitioner persuades us that Fletchall discloses payment server 130 performing the actions of limitations 15h and 15i: “retrieving . . . payment information to complete the transaction” and “completing . . . the transaction based on the payment information.” Ex. 1001, 23:43–24:2; Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:35–49, 11:3–12, 12:42–45, 13:9–14, 13:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 199–204, 206–208, 210; Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:3, Fig. 2B). Petitioner’s evidence also shows that Fletchall discloses limitation 15j’s “transmitting . . . a confirmation receipt to the mobile phone in response to completion of payment for the transaction” by payment server 130 on its own. Ex. 1001, 24:3–5; Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 213–214). For example, Petitioner cites Fletchall’s disclosure of at least one embodiment in which “the electronic receipt is generated by the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module (106b) of the mobile POS application (106).” Ex. 1008, 9:26–29; Pet. 27. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j by payment server 130. This showing is not diminished by Patent Owner’s observation that the Petition mentions Fletchall’s product database 121 when discussing limitation 15j. PO Sur-reply 27 n.12 (citing Pet. 26–27). In the passages Petitioner cites, Fletchall contains multiple, alternative disclosures about creating and sending a receipt. Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Pet. 27. For example, Fletchall contains (1) a disclosure that a receipt can be generated and transmitted by payment server 130 on its own (Ex. 1008, 9:26–29) and (2) an alternate disclosure that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the product database (121) in cooperation with the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module 106(b) of the mobile POS application (106)” (id. at 9:29–32). As Dr. Shamos notes, Fletchall also discloses that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server.” Ex. 1008, 11:19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 213. Immediately following this disclosure, Fletchall describes handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 and product database 121 working in cooperation as an alternative to handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own: The electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server, by the product database in cooperation with the payment server and/or by a mobile application installed on the mobile device directly. Once generated, the electronic receipt may be sent to the mobile device to be stored in a memory or in a storage device of the mobile device. Ex. 1008, 11:19–25 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s reliance on Fletchall’s disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own supports Petitioner’s case, regardless of Fletchall’s alternate disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 in cooperation with product database 121.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33

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

    “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• ABB Inc. v. Roboticvisiontech, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 1, 2024 · IPR2023-01426 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Corke, alone or with Wei-I, rendered any challenged claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “object space” should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the specification of the ’237 patent. See supra § III.B; Pet. 8. The ’237 patent defines “object space” as “a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, the object 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:25–26. Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how or why Corke’s camera calibration matrix, C, which “represents the relationship between 3-D world coordinates and their corresponding 2-D image coordinates” (Ex. 1004, 138 (emphasis added)), would relate in any way to an “object space” (i.e., a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, an object). Petitioner does not identify sufficiently any object in Corke with respect to which the world coordinate system of Corke is defined. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s conclusory assertion that “the camera pose obtained by Corke’s algorithm is defined with respect to the object space” “if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space.” See Pet. 20 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning to support why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered, or even envisioned, Corke’s 3D coordinates to be specified with respect to an object or an object space. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported conditional statement (“if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space”) is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. See Prelim. Resp. 15. Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony offers little support. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Dr. Hutchinson’s declaration largely mirrors the Petition and lacks sufficient additional explanation. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (determining that declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when the testimony merely repeats conclusory statements from the petition); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments persuasive. As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that the claim term “object space” should be construed in accordance with the definition provided in the specification of the ’237 patent. See supra § III.B; Pet. 8. The ’237 patent defines “object space” as “a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, the object 18.” Ex. 1001, 3:25–26. Petitioner, however, does not adequately explain how or why Corke’s camera calibration matrix, C, which “represents the relationship between 3-D world coordinates and their corresponding 2-D image coordinates” (Ex. 1004, 138 (emphasis added)), would relate in any way to an “object space” (i.e., a reference frame defined with respect to, and therefore rigid to, an object). Petitioner does not identify sufficiently any object in Corke with respect to which the world coordinate system of Corke is defined. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s conclusory assertion that “the camera pose obtained by Corke’s algorithm is defined with respect to the object space” “if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space.” See Pet. 20 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not provide adequate reasoning to support why one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered, or even envisioned, Corke’s 3D coordinates to be specified with respect to an object or an object space. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s unsupported conditional statement (“if the 3D coordinates are specified with respect to the object space”) is insufficient to establish obviousness in this instance. See Prelim. Resp. 15.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Dr. Hutchinson’s testimony offers little support. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 112. Dr. Hutchinson’s declaration largely mirrors the Petition and lacks sufficient additional explanation. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (determining that declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when the testimony merely repeats conclusory statements from the petition); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 30–36. Petitioner argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 79–81. Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim (see supra §§ III.C., III.D.), we need not reach Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 20

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,237
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01210 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 15, 18, 41, and 52 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition. Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final decision as to patentability of the challenged claims. Any final decision will be based on the full trial record, including any response to the Petition timely filed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “7. Conclusion We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of the Fintiv factors. Because our analysis is fact-driven, no single factor is determinative of whether we exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 314(a). We take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11, 6. Evaluating all of the factors on this record, we determine that weight of factors 1, 2, and 4 outweigh the remaining factors. Thus, based on our assessment of the Fintiv factors, we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems, having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 30. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “The first four of Petitioner’s proposed constructions are consistent with the clam constructions issued by the district court in the Google Action—the only difference being that although the district court found the corresponding structure for “positioning determining equipment” indefinite, Petitioner applies the corresponding structure proposed by Patent Owner in the Google Action. Ex. 1028, 8, 10–16, 20; Pet. 16. Petitioner cites Exhibit 1024 as supporting its contention that the parties have stipulated as to the order of the “collecting,” “modifying,” and “comparing” steps in claim 1, but this Exhibit does not appear to support the stipulation. See Ex. 1024. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s statement on claim construction for the purposes of [the] Preliminary Response” and “reserves the right to present arguments on the constructions should the Petition be instituted.”7 Prelim. Resp. 31. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the undisputed claim constructions that Petitioner proposes. These constructions are consistent 7 In other sections of the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner appears to argue in favor of a modified construction of “grid point.” Prelim. Resp. 18– 25; see also id. at 32 (“As further explained above in Section III, the district court concluded that ‘grid point,’ as used in the ’358 Patent, specifically refers to ‘a point associated with representative calibration data for an area’ that is generated based on analysis of calibration data.”). We disagree with these arguments for the reasons discussed below. with the claim language and the specification of the ’358 patent and are further supported by the reasoning provided by the district court’s claim construction order. See Ex. 1028. We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,400,358
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01209 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–3 and 11 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “is finality as that relates to Fintiv issues. In a similar instance in Volvo, where a district court’s § 101 determination was appealed to the Federal Circuit, the Director determined that the Board had the authority to institute an inter partes review and a Fintiv analysis should be performed. See Volvo, Paper 15 at 1–8. The Director has additionally distinguished a Fintiv analysis under similar circumstances to those here, where “the district court’s judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a statutory ground that could not have been raised before the Board, does not raise concerns of inefficient duplication of efforts or potentially inconsistent results between the Board and the district court.” AviaGames, Inc., Paper 14 at 3. Further, the Director determined that, “the challenged claims have not yet been cancelled and remain in force until the opportunity to appeal has been exhausted,” noting that “[b]y the time an appeal will have concluded, Petitioner will be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from bringing a new challenge in an IPR petition.” Id. at 3–4. Fintiv states that “a district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv at 6. In view of the circumstances, we do not discern that the § 101 issues addressed in the Federal Circuit appeal would duplicate the anticipation and obviousness issues addressed here. We also agree with Petitioner that the timing of the progress of the appeal and any potential remand to the district court is uncertain. Accordingly, given the limited § 101 issues on appeal, we do not discern there are any concerns about duplication of efforts. Moreover, because of the uncertainty of the timing of any remand from the Federal Circuit to the district court to address any anticipation or obviousness issues, the present circumstances with a” slip op. at 14

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). 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 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems, having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 31. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther

    “The first four of Petitioner’s proposed constructions are consistent with the clam constructions issued by the district court in the Google Action (see Ex. 1028, 8, 10, 20) or a position taken by Patent Owner in the Google Action (see Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 108–109). Petitioner cites Exhibit 1024 as supporting its contention that the parties have stipulated as to the order of the “collecting,” “modifying,” and “comparing” steps in claim 1, but this Exhibit does not appear to support the stipulation. See Ex. 1024. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s statement on claim construction for the purposes of [the] Preliminary Response” and “reserves the right to present arguments on the constructions should the Petition be instituted.”8 Prelim. Resp. 31. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt the undisputed claim constructions that Petitioner proposes. These constructions are consistent with the claim language and the specification of the ’104 patent and are further supported by the reasoning provided by the district court’s claim construction order. See Ex. 1028. We do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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 9

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,561,104
• Google LLC v. Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01213 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 10–13, 21, and 22 based on the reasonable likelihood they are obvious over Crane and Spain.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 10–13, 21 and 22 of the ’784 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “present circumstances. At present, there is no parallel litigation at all. The District Court proceeding (which ultimately related to only claim 11 of the ’784 patent) is complete. There is no appeal. Fintiv, Volvo, and Snap are all distinguishable on this basis. Fintiv, according to the language of that decision, only applies when there are parallel proceedings, and the parties do not cite any precedent to extend Fintiv’s reasoning to situations where there are not parallel proceedings. The Director’s June 21, 2022, Guidance Memo likewise relates to “parallel district court litigation.” USPTO Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (“Guidance Memo”) (June 21, 2022) (emphasis removed). As such, Fintiv’s six-factor analysis does not apply to the present situation. We further observe that the thrust of both Fintiv and the Guidance Memo place an emphasis on efficiency. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5 (emphasizing a balance of “efficiency, fairness, and patent quality”), 6 (emphasizing “efficiency and integrity of the system”). Here, there is no risk of inefficient duplication of efforts because there is no ongoing Article III court activity concerning the ’784 patent at all. While the Article III courts may have finally adjudicated claim 11, the courts have not ruled on the validity of challenged claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 21, or 22.6 Because there are 6 Patent Owner suggests that the District Court ruling as to claim 11 might also have implications as to the other challenged claims because these claims include the claim terms that the District Court focused on when addressing claim 11. Prelim. Resp. 5, n. 2. This, however, is not necessarily the case. Adjudicators must address indefiniteness on a claim-by-claim basis. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Spring Comm. Co. LP, 838 F.3d 1224, 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he dispositive question is whether the ‘claims,’ not particular claim terms, ‘read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.’”) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014)). Here, for the sake of efficiency, we decline to conduct a § 112 validity analysis of claims the District Court did not rule upon where the analysis would be only for the purpose of determining whether or not it is efficient to move forward with a § 103 validity analysis. no concerns of inefficiency here, there is no basis for discretionary denial based on Fintiv. 4. Alternative consideration of the Fintiv Factors In the alternative, even if we were to consider the Fintiv factors, the factors would weigh against discretionary denial here. The first Fintiv factor, possibility of a stay of litigation, is irrelevant because there is no ongoing litigation. The second factor, proximity of trial date, is irrelevant because there is no ongoing litigation. The third factor, investment in the parallel proceeding, is irrelevant because there is no parallel proceeding. To the extent we consider the prior proceeding, this factor is neutral because the prior proceeding did not address the obviousness issues raised by the Petition. The fourth Fintiv factor, overlap of issues, weighs against discretionary denial. There is no ongoing proceeding with any overlap of issues, and the prior proceeding did not address any of the obviousness issues the Petition raises and did not address most of the claims the Petition challenges. The fifth Fintiv factor, identity of parties, is neutral because there is no ongoing proceeding. If we consider the prior proceeding, this factor would weakly favor discretionary denial. The sixth Fintiv factor, other circumstances including the merits, favors institution because, as we explain below, Petitioner presents strong evidence on the merits that the challenged claims are obvious. Absent a compelling reason to the contrary, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of the Fintiv factors and, to the extent the Fintiv factors apply at all here, we determine that the circumstances presented here do not support exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of this inter partes review.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art: would have been someone knowledgeable in wireless networks, cellular radio systems, mobile communication devices and radio navigation systems, having at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, with a background in radio frequency communications and/or navigation system technology as well as approximately two years of industry experience working on radio communication and/or navigation systems. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 40). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 22. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “As to other claim terms, Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim based on the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms. Thus, we determine that no other claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. 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 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,097,784

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.