- Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00137 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied the petitions because Acxiom did not establish standing to seek covered business method review; it did not reach the merits of the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDenied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied rpiInstitution denied
“their real parties-in-interest or privies that have been sued or charged with infringement of a “covered business method patent,” which does not include patents for “technological inventions.” AIA §§ 18(a)(1)(B), 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302. Of key importance in this case is the requirement that “a person may not file a petition for a transitional proceeding with respect to a covered business method patent unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” AIA § 18(a)(1)(B) (emphases added); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Regarding this requirement, Petitioner does not allege that it has been charged with or sued for infringement, but instead contends that its” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,890,366 - Acxiom And Gerber v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00139 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show it had standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,860,744 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00138 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5
- ExcludeDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits base its standing on its relationship with AAA. See Acxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, Case CBM2015-00068, slip. op at 4–6 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2015) (Paper 23). 1128 and 1129 to be UNSEALED forty-five (45) days after the entry date of this decision.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,738,435 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00136 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not establish standing to seek covered business method review, failing to show it was a real party-in-interest or privy of a sued entity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,856,375 - Acxiom Corporation / Gerber Life Insurance Company et al. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00135 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show that Gerber was its real party in interest or privy, leaving Acxiom without CBM standing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,999,938 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00140 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,987,434 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · CBM2015-00068 · APJ Barry L Grossman · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Acxiom’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of CBM review because Acxiom itself did not meet the statutory standing requirement.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Acxiom asserts that “from oversight or misapprehension” (Req. Reh’g 3) the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“(emphases added). The statute further defines a “person” who may file a CBM petition as “a person who is not the owner of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 321(a).2 We construe the statute to mean that a person, such as a corporate petitioner, may file a CBM petition only if that individual entity, or its real parties in interest or privies, have been sued for, or charged with, infringement. See Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 FED. CIR. B.J. 539, 626 (2012) (“[A] party may petition for a proceeding only if that party or its real parties in interest or privies have been ‘sued for infringement of the patent or . . . charged with infringement under that patent. ’” (emphases added)).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,352,317 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01050 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the means-plus-function claims lacked sufficient structural disclosure and Feldmeier did not establish claim 63’s forwarding-permission limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’853 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Decided for patent owner
“The corresponding structure need not be explicitly identified but must disclose to a person of ordinary skill in the art what structure is identified in the specification. See Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear from the Specification whether the CPU, shown in Figure 2 as part of access control element 120, is the “higher-level processor” (Ex. 1001, 5:21–25), or some other processor running IOS (Ex. 1001, 1:33–37). It is also unclear which part of the access control element 120 is composed of “circuits adapted to particular process steps and data structures” (id. at 3:36–39). Here, the patent is at best unclear whether the claimed function is implemented in software executed on a general purpose CPU or in hardware as a collection of circuits. See Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“That ordinarily skilled artisans could carry out the recited function in a variety of ways is precisely why claims written in ‘means-plus-function’ form must disclose the particular structure that is used to perform the recited function.”). We also find that it is equally unclear whether the following means- plus-function limitations in claim 46, which appear to involve access control element 120, are implemented in hardware or in software structure (or some combination of both): “means for matching matchable information, said matchable information being responsive to said packet label, with said set of access control patterns in parallel”; “means for making a routing decision in response to said access result”; and “means for receiving a packet label responsible to a packet, said packet label being sufficient to perform access control processing for said packet.” Because the Specification of the challenged patent lacks sufficient disclosure of structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the scope of independent claim 46, and claims 47–52, 54, 56, and 59–62 that depend therefrom cannot be determined without speculation and, consequently, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. Thus, we decline to institute an inter partes review as to any ground challenging claims 46–52, 54, 56, and 59–62.” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner argues, “Feldmeier’s packet forwarding is not the same as determining forwarding permissions (e.g., whether a packet is restricted from being transmitted from a selected source device to a selected destination device.)” Prelim. Resp. 31–32. Patent Owner further argues Feldmeier does not process a packet based on a forwarding permission. Id. We agree. Petitioner purports to show that “matching one or more characteristics of said packet with one or more access control specifiers,” recited in claim 63, results in “permission” to forward a packet. Petitioner states that “the information obtained from the CAM lookup governs the decision of whether to route or discard the packet.” Pet. 40 citing (Ex. 1003 ¶ 106). We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner (Pet. 40), “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Ex. 1005, 13:24– 27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translations according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input or output permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown evidence that an affirmative match in Feldmeier results in a permission of packet forwarding, as required by claim 63. For the reasons stated above, we determine Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Feldmeier discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 63. Accordingly, the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 63 is anticipated by Feldmeier.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,023,853 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2015 · IPR2015-01049 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“(“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude the information presented does not show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 5, 7– 10, 12–16, 18–22, 25, and 28–31 of the ’577 patent and, therefore, deny the Petition for inter partes review..” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We note that Feldmeier discloses that “[a]ddress filtering is a process similar to address translation, except that rather than retrieving the data associated with an address, the process simply determines whether the address exists in a table of addresses.” Ex. 1005, 1:19–22. Feldmeier further discloses that “[t]he term address translation, as used herein, includes both address translation and address filtering operations.” Id. at 1:22–24. Also, as cited by Petitioner, “Demultiplexer 1430 routes the packet . . . to either output packet queue 1450 or to discard line 1460 depending on the signal received from network address lookup 1440.” Id. at 13:24–27. Finally, “[n]etwork address lookup 1440 is an apparatus for performing hierarchical address translation[s] according to an embodiment of the invention.” Id. at 13:19–22. These passages suggest that a translation that yields no match (filtering) results in the packet being sent to the discard line. In contrast, the Specification supports that a successful match leading to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“to a forwarding permission is contemplated by the claims. Ex. 1001, 7:1–12, 27–39 (determining an input [or output] permission by, among other things, “determining all of the successful matches”); see also Prelim. Resp. 24 (“Feldmeier never discloses that its firewall device makes a decision to permit or deny a packet based on a matching entry in the network address lookup.”). Based on the above passages, Petitioner has not shown that, even under our broad construction of access control, an affirmative match in Feldmeier can result in a modification or a denial of packet forwarding, as required by claim 1.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“In a computer network for transmitting information, messages can be restricted from being transmitted from selected source devices to selected destination devices. In known computer networks, this form of restriction is known as “access control” and is performed by routers, which route messages (in the form of individual packets of information) from source devices to destination devices. Ex. 1001, 1:4–10. Patent Owner also cites certain dictionary definitions. Id. at 10–11. Patent Owner states that “modifying” transmission is “nowhere in the record.” Id. Nonetheless, Patent Owner does not explain why the embodiment cited by the Petitioner above is not relevant to construing the claims. Because the embodiment cited by Petitioner suggests that access control may be used to change the destination address of a packet, we apply a broader definition than proposed by Patent Owner. We find the broadest reasonable construction of “access control” to include restrictions or modifications on the intended destination address to which a packet is to be transmitted.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,377,577 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00735 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol; claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol and DeLorme.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“testified regarding Degnbol’s “incognito” mode. Ex. 1017, 215:22–218:22. Petitioner moves to exclude this redirect testimony as beyond the scope of Mr. Zatkovich’s Declaration (Ex. 2017) and Petitioner’s cross examination. Paper 43 (Mot. to Exclude), 1–3. Patent Owner does not cite to or rely on this testimony. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of 3 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that it did not include in its Response any patentability argument distinguishing the prior art under its proposed construction of “user sending status.” Tr. 13:7–14:16. Instead, Patent Owner points to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, which Patent Owner admits is not cited in its Response. Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 81–89). Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “user sending status,” Patent Owner has waived any patentability arguments based thereon, as they were not raised in the Response. See, e.g., Paper 27 (Scheduling Order), 2–3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 4 Petitioner, citing Dr. Heppe’s testimony, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent thereof, and one to two years of experience in the field of computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications networking.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 3). Patent Owner neither contends that this is incorrect nor proposes an alternative. On the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent that Patent Owner’s characterization of the Specification’s description of “transmit status” is accurate, it is not consistent with how the term “user sending status” is used in claim 7. Specifically, claim 7 recites that “the central unit receives the user sending 2 The Specification generally uses the term “central server,” while the claims generally use the term “central unit.” The parties do not argue that these terms should be accorded different meanings. Reading the claims in light of the Specification, we understand these terms to be synonymous. status from the second mobile communications device and the information defining the locations of the first and the second mobile communications devices” and “if there is a match and depending upon the user sending status, effects the transmission to the first mobile communications device of locating information.” As Petitioner points out (Reply 18), claim 7 specifies that the central unit receives from the second mobile communications device both a user sending status and information defining location of the second mobile communications device. The user sending status is used by the central unit, along with the information defining the device’s location, to determine whether to send locating information to another device. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and the explanation provided by Mr. Zatkovich, would exclude the second communications device from transmitting to the central server the very information specifically recited in claim 7. Because Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, specifically his statement that “[t]he purpose of the user sending status in this example is to enable and disable the transmission of locating information from device 19 to the central server,” Ex. 2017 ¶ 56, is directly contradicted by the language of claim 7, the testimony lacks credibility. Moreover, as explained in the Decision to Institute (Dec. 11–12), the Specification describes embodiments in which the transmit status is transmitted to the central server and controls whether the central server transmits locating information to another device. Ex. 1007, 6:44–50, 8:1–7, 9:3–8, 10:50–59, 11:24–29. These passages provide additional support for Petitioner’s proposed construction of “user sending status.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude these embodiments.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes examples of “locating information” that indicates that a mobile device is within a certain proximity but without specifying a specific location. Indeed, in this Figure 5 embodiment (Ex. 1007, 14:22–32), the term “locating information” is used to describe information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. We conclude that a construction excluding such embodiments would be unreasonably narrow. See Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note that Patent Owner does not offer persuasive evidence that the Specification defines “locating information” or excludes or disavows locating information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. Patent Owner also argues that our construction “ignores the word ‘locating’” and “conflates the notions of ‘locating information’ and ‘proximity/profile data.’” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner argues that proximity/profile data is distinct from locating information. Id. at 13–16. We agree with Patent Owner that locating information is distinct from proximity/profile data, but disagree that our construction conflates the two. According to the ’593 patent, in determining whether to send locating information, a central server evaluates profile data and proximity data to determine whether there is a match. Ex. 1007, 8:54–9:2. Locating information is not merely the profile and proximity data, nor is proximity/profile data sent to the mobile devices. Rather, the central server sends to a mobile device locating information that indicates to the mobile device that the profile and proximity data have been successfully matched. Id. at 9:3–8. Our construction of “locating information” is directed to the information transmitted by the central server, rather than the information received by the central server. As to reading the word “locating” out of “locating information,” Petitioner, in reliance on Dr. Heppe, argues that “information, sent as a consequence of a proximity test, is ‘locating information’ because information about a device’s proximity to known locations provides information about that device’s location.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 2). We credit Dr. Heppe’s testimony and agree with Petitioner. We conclude that our construction neither ignores “locating” nor conflates “locating information” with proximity/profile data.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 6,618,593 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,618,593
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.