- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00393 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13, 14, 16–23, and 25–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Koyanagi and Cooke and over Bertin and Cooke.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Shanfield, Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the ’226 Patent would have been a person having a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Physics with three to five years of industry experience in integrated circuit design, layout, packaging or fabrication. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–48. A greater level of experience in the relevant field may compensate for less education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“13.4 in claim 13) and “means for updating the plurality of configuration logic cells within one clock cycle” (limitation 22.4 in claim 22) are means-plus-function limitations and should be construed as per 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Pet. 9; PO Resp. 6–7. Both of these limitations listed above recite “means” and further recite a function, thus creating a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (quoting Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We agree with the parties that these limitations are means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, in focusing on this portion of the ’226 patent disclosure, does not adequately explain why buffer cells and configuration memory cells must be included in the proper construction of “wide configuration data port,” and seeks to import a functional description of the use of a wide configuration data port (“that allows parallel updating of logic cells in a programmable array through use of buffer cells”) into the claim construction. PO Resp. 11–14; PO Sur-reply 2–4. While the discussion in the ’226 patent describes an example of a wide configuration data port used in a specific way that aligns with Patent Owner’s proposal (Ex. 1001, 4:45– 59), other examples of the use of a wide configuration data port are included (id. at 4:59–65), and therefore we do not agree that one of ordinary skill would understand this use to be part of the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that the proper construction of the term does not require buffer cells to be specifically described. See Pet. Reply 6–9. Rather, we note that the specification of the ’226 patent contrasts loading of data to an FPGA in a byte serial fashion through a narrow port, which “results in [] long reconfiguration times,” with the use of a wide configuration data port, and therefore we determine that one of ordinary skill would understand the wide configuration data port, in contrast to the byte serial “relatively narrow” port, to include parallel connections between cells in the dies. See Ex. 1001, 4:3–9. This additionally is consistent with certain arguments by Patent Owner, for example in the Patent Owner’s Response, which opens with a discussion of the “inventive” processor’s arrangement of die-area contacts, such as through-silicon vias, “into a wide configuration data port” and we find that description more consistent with the proper construction of this term. PO Resp. 1–2; see also id. at 8 (“[T]he ’226 Patent specifically identifies that the wide configuration data port reconfigures both a programmable array and/or logic cells in one clock cycle because it can communicate with many cells (which form an ‘array’) in parallel, and is therefore considered ‘wide.’”)” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“While corresponding structure need not include all things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Conversely, structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations. Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308–09, (Fed. Cir. 1998); see B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”). Given our construction of wide configuration data port, Patent Owner’s argument that the corresponding structure for this limitation must require that buffer cells on one die element are connected in parallel to cells on another die element is based on the description of the use of buffer cells as used in the updating of the FPGA while it is in operation. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:50–54, Fig. 5). However, we note that this description is followed by the disclosure that “[t]he buffer cells 88 are preferably a portion of the memory die 66.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–54. It does not appear, therefore, that buffer cells are always a portion of the memory die, or are required when the FPGA is not in operation, and thus we decline to require in the corresponding structure that they be specified to be on a specific separate die element. Rather, we find that what is disclosed as actually performing the recited function of “reconfiguring the programmable array within one clock cycle” is “a wide configuration data port and contact points formed throughout the area of the first integrated circuit die element and another integrated circuit die element.” The support for this is found in the ’266 patent’s comparison of the long reconfiguration times through a narrow port (Ex. 1001, 4:3–9) with the time to reconfigure through a wide configuration data port with a significantly increased number of connections (id. at 4:45– 65), and the implementation of this in a module that has multiple dies “which have a number of corresponding contact points, or holes, 70 formed throughout the area of the [die] package” (id. at 4:9–20). The use of a wide configuration data port, as per our construction, implicates two die elements. This was reflected in our preliminary claim construction, for which the corresponding structure described “contact points distributed through the slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,781,226 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,781,226 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 24, 2021 · IPR2020-01022 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13, 14, 16–23, and 25–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Koyanagi and Cooke, and over Bertin and Cooke.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Shanfield, Petitioner contends that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the ’226 Patent would have been a person having a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Physics with three to five years of industry experience in integrated circuit design, layout, packaging or fabrication. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45–48. A greater level of experience in the relevant field may compensate for less education, and vice versa. Pet. 7–8. Patent Owner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) around December 5, 2001 (the earliest effective filing date of the ’226 6 No argument or evidence regarding secondary considerations has been presented in this proceeding. Patent) would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering or a related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience; and/or (2) an advanced degree in Electrical Engineering or related field. PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 31–34). As we did in the Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which comports with the teachings of the ’226 patent and the asserted prior art. See Dec. on Inst. 18–19. Patent Owner’s proposed level is lower but it overlaps with Petitioner’s proposed level. Even if we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level, the outcome would remain the same. C.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“Both of these limitations listed above recite “means” and further recite a function, thus creating a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 applies. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”); see also Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part) (quoting Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). We agree with the parties that these limitations are means-plus-function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, in focusing on this portion of the ’226 patent disclosure, does not adequately explain why buffer cells and configuration memory cells must be included in the proper construction of “wide configuration data port,” and seeks to import a functional description of the use of a wide configuration data port (“that allows parallel updating of logic cells in a programmable array through use of buffer cells”) into the claim construction. PO Resp. 11–14; PO Sur-reply 2–4. While the discussion in the ’226 patent describes an example of a wide configuration data port used in a specific way that aligns with Patent Owner’s proposal (Ex. 1001, 4:45– 59), other examples of the use of a wide configuration data port are included (id. at 4:59–65), and therefore we do not agree that one of ordinary skill would understand this use to be part of the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that the proper construction of the term does not require buffer cells to be specifically described. See Pet. Reply 6–9. Rather, we note that the specification of the ’226 patent contrasts loading of data to an FPGA in a byte serial fashion through a narrow port, which “results in [] long reconfiguration times,” with the use of a wide configuration data port, and therefore we determine that one of ordinary skill would understand the wide configuration data port, in contrast to the byte serial “relatively narrow” port, to include parallel connections between cells in the dies. See Ex. 1001, 4:3–9. This additionally is consistent with certain arguments by Patent Owner, for example in the Patent Owner’s Response, which opens with a discussion of the “inventive” processor’s arrangement of die-area contacts, such as through-silicon vias, “into a wide configuration data port” and we find that description more consistent with the proper construction of this term. PO Resp. 1–2; see also id. at 8 (“[T]he ’226 Patent specifically identifies that the wide configuration data port reconfigures both a programmable array and/or logic cells in one clock cycle because it can communicate with many cells (which form an ‘array’) in parallel, and is therefore considered ‘wide.’”)” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“While corresponding structure need not include all things necessary to enable the claimed invention to work, it must include all structure that actually performs the recited function.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys. Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Conversely, structural features that do not actually perform the recited function do not constitute corresponding structure and thus do not serve as claim limitations. Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308–09, (Fed. Cir. 1998); see B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.”). Given our construction of wide configuration data port, Patent Owner’s argument that the corresponding structure for this limitation must require that buffer cells on one die element are connected in parallel to cells on another die element is based on the description of the use of buffer cells as used in the updating of the FPGA while it is in operation. PO Supp. Br. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:50–54, Fig. 5). However, we note that this description is followed by the disclosure that “[t]he buffer cells 88 are preferably a portion of the memory die 66.” Ex. 1001, 4:50–54. It does not appear, therefore, that buffer cells are always a portion of the memory die, or are required when the FPGA is not in operation, and thus we decline to require in the corresponding structure that they be specified to be on a specific separate die element. Rather, we find that what is disclosed as actually performing the recited function of “reconfiguring the programmable array within one clock cycle” is “a wide configuration data port and contact points formed throughout the area of the first integrated circuit die element and another integrated circuit die element.” The support for this is found in the ’266 patent’s comparison of the long reconfiguration times through a narrow port (Ex. 1001, 4:3–9) with the time to reconfigure through a wide configuration data port with a significantly increased number of connections (id. at 4:45– 65), and the implementation of this in a module that has multiple dies “which have a number of corresponding contact points, or holes, 70 formed throughout the area of the [die] package” (id. at 4:9–20). The use of a wide configuration data port, as per our construction, implicates two die elements. This was reflected in our preliminary claim construction, for which the corresponding structure described “contact points distributed through the slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 6,781,226 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,781,226 - Unified Patents Inc. v. KCG Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 10, 2021 · IPR2019-01536 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious; the revised motion to amend is denied because proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable as obvious or indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner. Proposed substitute claim 24 recites “the handheld device” without antecedent basis. This lack of antecedent basis renders proposed substitute claim 24 indefinite, as we noted in our Preliminary Guidance. Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25; Prelim. Guidance 8 (“Proposed substitute claim 24 also recites ‘the handheld device’ and also suffers from the lack of antecedent basis). Despite having the opportunity to correct its error and amend proposed substitute dependent claim 24 when independent claim 14 was amended to remove the recitation of “a handheld device,” Patent Owner did not do so in its Contingent Revised Motion to Amend. RMTA 31. Proposed substitute claim 24 is indefinite because the claim “fails to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014); see USPTO Memorandum on the Approach to Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings (Jan. 6, 2021)13; see MPEP 2173.05(e) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, June 2020). This is because “the handheld device” is only recited in proposed substitute claim 24, and the proposed substitute claim fails to inform one skilled in the art the scope of invention related to synchronizing “data on the handheld device” “in the virtual smart phone.” Because proposed substitute claims 25 and 26 depend from proposed substitute claim 24, we similarly agree with Petitioner that claims 25 and 26 also are indefinite for lacking an antecedent basis for the term “handheld device.” Pet. Opp. to RMTA 25. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 24–26 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Whether to treat a preamble term as a claim limitation is determined on the facts of each case in light of the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 329 F.3d 823, 831 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Absent clear reliance on the preamble in the prosecution history, or in situations where it is necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claim, the preamble generally is not limiting.” Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). When the limitations in the body of the claim rely upon or derive essential structure from the preamble, then the preamble acts as a necessary component of the claimed invention and is limiting. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A claim preamble also is limiting if the preamble is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 182 F.3d at 1305. We disagree with Patent Owner. Specifically, we do not agree that limitations in the body of the claims require the preamble to serve as an antecedent basis nor do they derive essential structure from the preamble. Rather, all of the elements recited in the body of claim 1 comprise a “virtual smart phone.” That is, we do not discern, and Patent Owner fails to persuasively point us to, any structure imparted by the preamble’s recitation of a “virtual smart phone.” See Pet. Reply 1–2. We similarly do not agree that the without the term “virtual smart phone” there would be no understanding of the “emulating” or “handheld device” limitations. Rather, the recited “software application executing on the processor” limitation provides the structure and meaning for the “emulating” of the “handheld device” features. Furthermore, we agree with the Petitioner that there is no evidence in the record that the prosecution history requires that the preamble is limiting, and the claims were distinguished during prosecution based on the recitation of a “virtual” smart phone. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the preamble is limiting. slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“on the process to . . . emulate features of a handheld device.” Ex. 1001, 12:58–60 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the term “‘emulate’ has a meaning in the art that is common and understood to mean ‘to imitate.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner provides a dictionary definition to support its contention. Ex. 2004 (defining “emulate” as “to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass”). Patent Owner contends the use of “emulate” in claim 1 comports with its commonly understood meaning as “to imitate,” as does the use of the term “emulate” in the written description. Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:3, 2:6–3:5, 12:54–13:2 (claim 1)). Petitioner argues that the term “emulate” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning and does not contest Patent Owner’s construction of the term “emulate” as “to imitate.” Pet. 6–7; Pet. Reply 7. Petitioner, however, contests Patent Owner’s application of that construction to the asserted prior art. Pet. Reply 4–7 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner specifically argues that Patent Owner implies that “(1) the imitation must be an exact duplicate in display and manner of input . . . or (2) the imitation relates only to the display and touch screen aspects.” Pet. Reply 4–5. In support of its position that Patent Owner’s interpretation of “to imitate” improperly narrows the meaning of “emulate,” Petitioner contends the written description discloses “less than full replication as emulation” and “controlling the handheld device th[r]ough control of a projected image using a variety of control input mechanisms provides emulation.” Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:2–5, 3:57–61, 4:63–66, 6:24–42). Petitioner also notes that the dictionary definition Patent Owner proffered indicates that an exact duplication is not required. Pet. Reply 7 (“The complete definition of emulate [as] ‘to imitate in an effort to equal or surpass.’ Ex. 1004, 3”). We conclude that a preponderance of evidence supports the construction of the term “emulate” to mean “to imitate,” without any further restriction such as exact duplication or only display or touch screen aspects. Accordingly, we construe the term “emulate” as “to imitate.”” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at or before the priority date of the ’955 patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in the field of automotive information systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 38–39); Ex. 1034 ¶ 14 (Petitioner’s expert reiterating the same level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner does not propose an ordinary level of skill in the art. We agree with and adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art as articulated by Petitioner.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,671,955 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,671,955 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 8, 2020 · IPR2018-01476 · APJ J John Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 are unpatentable as obvious over Paulraj, Walton, and Huang; the Wallace and Walton ground does not establish the required simultaneity.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or an equivalent as well as three years of experience working with “multi-antenna wireless communication systems,” or one year of such experience with a master’s degree in electrical engineering focusing on communications systems. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s 2 U.S. Patent No. 6,067,290, issued May 23, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Paulraj”). 3 H. Huang et al., Achieving High Data Rates in CDMA Systems Using BLAST Techniques, in CONFERENCE RECORD, IEEE GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE 2316 (1999) (Ex. 1006, “Huang”). 4 U.S. Patent No. 7,095,709 B2, issued Aug. 22, 2006 (Ex. 1008, “Walton”). 5 U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2002/0193146 A1, published Dec. 19, 2002 (Ex. 1009, “Wallace”). formulation of the level of skill in the art, and applies it for its arguments. PO Resp. 10. Based on the information presented in the Petition and Dr. Singer’s testimony, we agree with Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by the record and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). B.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“limiting. See Pet. Reply 5; PO Sur-reply 7–8; Tr. 8:5–15. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting Pitney Bowes, 182 F.3d at 1305). On the other hand, a preamble generally is not limiting “where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention.” Id. (quoting Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For example, if “deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention,” the preamble is not limiting. Id. at 809 (citing IMS Tech., Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, we are persuaded the preamble is limiting. Although the parties dispute whether spatial multiplexing and transmit diversity occur simultaneously, it is undisputed that spatial multiplexing is part of the claimed invention. See Pet. 2; PO Resp. 6; Tr. 6:13–26 (Petitioner indicating “we agree that the claims require transmit diversity and signal multiplexing”). The Specification supports this view. For example, the Specification states that “i[t] is an object of the present invention to improve reception performance of specific data on a receiving side while maintaining the transmission efficiency of a communication system.” Ex. 1001, 2:3–6 (emphasis added). The technique for improving transmission efficiency disclosed in the Specification is spatial multiplexing. See id. at 5:13–17 (describing “two transmission systems to transmit different items of data, [which] maintains high transmission efficiency”), Figs. 3, 4; see also id. at 1:42–47 (indicating “signals sent from a plurality of transmission antennas at the same timing and same frequency in substream units” help “realize a high-speed, high-volume communication”). Further, the only part of claim 1 that recites spatial multiplexing is the preamble. See Pet. Reply 3–6; PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1020, 21:22–22:18. Neither party indicates that any other claim language captures spatial multiplexing. Thus, if the preamble is not limiting, claim 1 would not incorporate spatial multiplexing at all, which is inconsistent with how the invention is described in the Specification. Consequently, we determine that the preamble of claim 1 recites “essential structure or steps” and, thus, is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. See Catalina Mktg., 289 F.3d at 808.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The final limitation of claim 1 (the “wherein” clause) recites “generat[ing] a replica data item by replicating a specific data item of the plurality of data items, and map[ping] the plurality of data items to the at least one of the plurality of antennas such that the specific data item and the replica data item are transmitted from different antennas at a same time.” It is undisputed that this limitation recites transmit diversity. Critically, as Patent Owner observes, this limitation recites “a specific data item of the plurality of data items” (emphasis added), i.e., the “specific data item” that is replicated for transmit diversity is part of the same “plurality of data items” recited in the preamble for spatial multiplexing. See PO Resp. 7 (“Therefore, the specific data item described in transmit diversity (TD) with the replica data item, is also involved in spatial multiplexing (SM) at the same time . . . with other data items of the plurality [of] data items . . . .”); PO Sur-reply 4 (asserting that the “same ‘plurality of data items’ are subject to spatial multiplexing in the preamble and transmit diversity in [the ‘wherein’ clause]”); Tr. 44:22–45:2. Consequently, in order for both the preamble limitations and the “wherein” clause limitations to be met, a plurality of data items, including the specific data item, must be transmitted via spatial multiplexing, i.e., using a plurality of antennas in parallel. In other words, both the specific data item and at least one other data item that is different (i.e., the recited “plurality”) must be transmitted at the same time. In addition, both the specific data item and its replica data item must also be transmitted at the same time, as recited in the “wherein” clause, for transmit diversity. Thus, at least three data items—the specific data item, its replica, and another different data item—must be transmitted at the same time to satisfy the claim because both spatial multiplexing (preamble) and transmit diversity (“wherein” clause) must occur. See PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 2–3; Ex. 1020, 12:17–21. As a result, the claim requires simultaneity.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Based on the complete trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s reasoning and evidence discussed above. Consequently, we find that a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the combination of Paulraj, Walton, and Huang teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 6, including the requirement of simultaneity. Patent Owner advances several arguments opposing Petitioner’s contentions, which we find unpersuasive for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 7,764,711 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,764,711 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 25, 2020 · IPR2018-01475 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under §103 over Tomlinson and Malkamaki; claims 1, 2, 4, 10, and 11 are also unpatentable over Davis and Wei.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Although we agree with Patent Owner that the broadest reasonable interpretation does not simply mean the broadest interpretation (PO Resp. 13), we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the broadest reasonable claim construction for “first information sequence” should be “important information.” Id. at 15. As Petitioner points out during oral arguments, the claims are not specific as to what “first information” is other than “first” is merely used to “differentiate” it from “second” information, “a very common thing when it comes to patent claim drafting.” Tr. 18. As Petitioner points out, “the Federal Circuit said the use of terms first and second is a common patent law convention to distinguish between repeated 12 instances of an element or limitation, which is exactly how Patent Owner has used it here.” Id. (citing 3M Innovative, 350 F.3d at 1371). Further, as Petitioner points out, dependent claims 5–6 and 13–14 limit the “first information sequence” from the respective independent claims to “specific types of information,” including “retransmission information” and information “used for an error control.” Pet. Reply 1–2. That is, “where the applicant intended to limit an information sequence to a specific type, it made those narrowing characteristics express.” Id. at 2 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“Other claims . . . can also be valuable sources of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.”)). As Petitioner points out, here, Applicant chose not to limit (at least in the independent claims) the sequences of bits “to any particular type.” Id. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification shows that (1) “features of the present invention as a whole” limit the scope of the claims and (2) the Specification’s repeated descriptions mapping “important information” to “the first and second bits.” PO Sur-reply 5. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the Specification, we construe the term “first” information sequence as a particular information sequence, and “second” information sequence as another information sequence distinguishable from the “first.” The Specification, including the claim language and the prosecution history, do not compel any different conclusion. We also are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that adding a subjective term such as “important” into the claim construction would 13 introduce ambiguity. Tr. 20–21. Thus, we agree that we should not adopt a construction that replaces an unambiguous claim limitation with one that depends on purely subjective opinion. See Intellectual Ventures, 902 F.3d at 1381. Thus, we conclude “first information sequence” can be any information sequence that if different from a “second information sequence,” wherein “a sequence of bits” are generated including “at least one bit” of each of the first and second information sequences. Ex. 1001, 10:50–67.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (explaining that only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not challenge the Petition’s definition of the level of skill of a POSITA. See generally PO Resp. We adopt and apply Dr. Singer’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is 3 Neither party has presented arguments regarding objective evidence of nonobviousness in the instant proceeding. 16 consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Although Petitioner acknowledges that Patent Owner relies on Dr. Nettleton to dispute that Tomlinson’s 12-bit sequence of symbol words is a “sequence of bits,” Petitioner contends that “Dr. Nettleton later recanted that opinion.” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1021, 18:23–19:22). In particular, Petitioner contends that Dr. Nettleton “confirmed” that Tomlinson’s signal organizer “recombines bits from the base and overlay stream into ‘a sequence of bits,’ i.e., the symbol words.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1021, 48:10– 20). That is, in Dr. Nettleton’s deposition, he confirmed that in Figure 3 of Tomlinson, “the information bits from the base stream and the overlay stream are . . . recombined back into a sequence of bits,” wherein “that sequence of bits” are the “symbol words.” Ex. 1021, 48:10–20. We agree with Petitioner that Tomlinson’s signal organizer 16 is arranged to receive the base and overlay streams and to generate “a succession of symbol words of binary form.” See Ex. 1007, 16:54–56. Based on this teaching by Tomlinson, and the deposition of Dr. Nettleton (Ex. 1021, 48:10–20), we are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Tomlinson’s signal organizer generates 12 bits per frame including 8 bits from the base stream and 4 bits from the second/overlay stream. Pet. 17.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 7,760,815 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,760,815 - Apple Inc. / HTC Corporation et al. v. Invt Spe LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 21, 2020 · IPR2018-01472 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are unpatentable under § 103 over Nakamura and Okumura, and independently over Bhagalia and Abe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to claim 1, according to Petitioner, the claim includes “limitations in means-plus function format, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the [Applicant] intended to invoke § 112, ¶ 6.”2 Pet. 8–9; see also Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the Decision on Institution, we addressed Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function (“MPF”) terms, and we determined that Petitioner had set forth proposed structures that support these limitations. Dec. on Inst. 9–12 (citing Pet. 9–11); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). As we noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s constructions presume that the meaning of specific functions, such as “generating” a frame, for example, are generally known. Dec. on Inst. 10. Patent Owner 2 Applicant is Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. 9 has not rebutted this presumption. Petitioner’s proposed constructions of the means-plus-function terms in the claims (Pet. 9–11) are as follows:” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“As for the other claim limitations of independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 15, and claims 2, 3, 6, 13, and 16 depending respectively therefrom, for the reasons set forth below, the explicit requirements set forth in claims themselves sufficiently limit the claims without requiring further construction. Thus, we determine that we need not further construe expressly any other claim terms to resolve the arguments before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties propose similar levels of ordinary skill in the art and do not directly challenge the other’s proposal. We consider the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding 14 that absent evidence to the contrary, “the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art). In general, we agree with the areas of agreement in the parties’ proposals. Patent Owner has not explained sufficiently why researching or working particularly with “cellular radio communication systems” is necessary (PO Resp. 12), and so we adopt Petitioner’s proposed general experience of working with “digital communication systems or in network engineering” (Pet. 6), which comports with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we determine that a person of ordinary skill would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or the equivalent plus three years of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering with an emphasis on communication systems or the equivalent plus one year of experience working with digital communication systems or in network engineering.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“original); also Pet. 24–25). Even Patent Owner concedes that Claim 12 of Nakamura discloses that “necessary signals could include ‘one or more’ of pilot signals, synchronization information, order number, and TPC information.” Sur-Reply 4 (citing 1004, 15:51–61). The Supreme Court has stated that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 416). According to Petitioner, “[t]he proposed modification to Nakamura would be straightforward, not requiring undue experimentation, and would produce predictable results.” Pet. 25. That is, “it would have been natural and an application of nothing more than ordinary skill and common sense.” Id. at 25–26. Here, the question is whether combining Okumura’s teaching of using both pilot and TPC symbols in the same necessary signal with Nakumura’s necessary signals comprising control data, such as pilot symbols and TPC symbols, was “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters, 485 F.3d at 1162 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 421). As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s Expert, “Dr. Vojcic admitted that no technical barriers would have prevented a POSITA from modifying the expressly disclosed embodiments of Nakamura to combine pilot and TPC symbols.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1016, 34:14–35:20). We view Petitioner’s combination as being akin to a simple substitution of Okumura’s use of both pilot and TPC 34 symbols in Nakamura’s necessary signals. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (indicating determining obviousness is easier when the claimed subject matter involves “a simple substitution for one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.”). We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “[t]he Petition’s proposed combination of Nakamura and Okumura is guided by the ’563 patent and driven by hindsight.” PO Resp. 32. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura and Okumura provide sufficient motivation for combining the references in the manner required by the claims. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, 15:53–61; Ex. 1005, 14, 18, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–54). First, although Patent Owner contends that “there is no discussion of the benefits gained by sending both pilot and power control symbols” (PO Resp. 32 (citing Pet. 21), we agree with Petitioner that Nakamura explains that pilot symbols permit ‘coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side’ and that power control symbols permit ‘carrying out a transmission power control’” and this provides a reason one of ordinary skill in the art would make Petitioner’s proposed combination. Ex. 1004, 11:48–50 (“In this eighth embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes pilot signals to be used in carrying out the coherent detection with interpolation at a receiving side”), 13:11–14 (“In this eleventh embodiment, the necessary signal generation unit 10 includes a transmission power control information which is necessary in carrying out a transmission power control.”); Pet. 21 (quoting Ex. 1004, 11:48–50, 13:11–14)). Thus, although Patent Owner contends that Nakamura “does not” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 6,466,563 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,466,563 - NEC Corporation / Nokia Corporation et al. v. Neptune Subsea IP LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 25, 2019 · IPR2018-01157 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto; the Chowdhury and Webb grounds, with or without Tanaka162, do not establish unpatentability.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that each of claims 13–20 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties submit and we agree that there is no need to construe any term to resolve the issues in this decision. See Pet. 7–9; PO Resp. 6; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“e. Summary For the reasons described above, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have had reason to combine Yamamoto’s and Nishimoto’s teachings as asserted by Petitioner and that the combination teaches all of claim 13’s limitations. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 13 would have been obvious over Yamamoto and Nishimoto.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“tunable compensators is a contingent argument, applicable only if one reads claim 13 to require a certain transmission rate. PO Resp. 21–25. We do not read Petitioner’s argument as so constrained. Rather, we understand Petitioner to argue that a desire for higher transmission speeds would drive skilled artisans to use solutions such as Nishimoto’s tunable compensators, particularly in light of Nishimoto’s guidance regarding the ability to achieve high speeds with the system. See Pet. 21–23. In that regard, we agree with Petitioner that the increase in transmission rates from Yamamoto’s to Nishimoto’s disclosures would have given skilled artisans reason to consider Nishimoto’s teachings. Pet. Reply 16–18 (citing Ex. 1005 8:9–11; Ex. 1007, 12:37–39). As Petitioner points out, Nishimoto specifically discloses that higher-speed transmissions were more sensitive to dispersion. Pet. Reply 17 n.9. Thus, we find the desire for higher transmission speeds and the need for techniques such as taught by Nishimoto would have given skilled artisans reasons to combine Nishimoto’s disclosure regarding dispersion compensation with Yamamoto’s system to achieve Yamamoto’s goals regarding the dispersion maps for multiple channels. Further, Petitioner does not rest entirely on the desire for high-speed operation. Petitioner argues also that using Nishimoto’s adjustable compensators and feedback control would “yield an improved WDM system capable of automatic compensation for degradation of the optical signal waveform caused by both wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion of the optical transmission path, resulting in further reduced size and cost.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 99, 101; Ex. 1007, 3:41–60, 4:3–58, Figs. 17, 20, 21), 29–30 (quoting Ex. 1007, Abstract, 3:37–40, 6:56–64, 7:53–56, 11:41–46, 17:53–55, 17:59–60; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 114–115); accord id. at 14 (quoting Ex. 1007, 3:19–25). Patent Owner recognizes that basis for the combination but argues that the record lacks evidence to support Petitioner’s claim of reduced size and cost. PO Resp. 25–26. Patent Owner does not contest that the modification would give Yamamoto’s system the ability to automatically compensate for signal degradation from dispersion. Nishimoto discloses that as transmission speeds increase, “changes in wavelength dispersion characteristics due to temperature changes of optical fiber; and the influence by polarization mode dispersion” both “can not be neglected,” therefore requiring a system for automatically compensating for wavelength dispersion and polarization mode dispersion,” as taught by Nishimoto. Ex. 1007, 1:34–41. We find that a skilled artisan would have had reason to make the combination because the system would gain capability for automatic compensation. Regarding reduced size and cost resulting from the combination, Patent Owner does not provide any contrary evidence and we conclude that Nishimoto’s statements regarding the benefit of its invention also would have motivated skilled artisans to make the combination. See Ex. 1007, 3:17–26 (“to thereby provide a dispersion compensating apparatus of reduced sizes at a reduced cost”).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,351,798 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,351,798 - Illumina, Inc. v. The Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New YorkAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00797 · APJ Michelle N Ankenbrand · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted grounds; the Board also denied Petitioner’s motion to exclude and found no estoppel against Patent Owner.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“II. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE In support of its briefing, Patent Owner provided a declaration of” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“proceedings or would otherwise have a collateral estoppel effect on the current proceedings. See Paper 59, 4–5. For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the claims of the ’985 patent have material differences from the claims at issue in the previous proceedings, and that there is no inconsistency between Patent Owner’s positions in the current proceeding and in the previous proceedings. Accordingly, we determine that there is no estoppel attaching to Patent Owner with respect to the present inter partes reviews. Below, we provide a brief history of the previous proceedings and then address Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 61
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“analogues for SBS, and Metzker reports actually achieving such a molecule. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports our determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success and reasonable likelihood of success in “meet[ing] the limitations” of claim 1 to the extent the claim requires using such an analogue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., 821 F.3d at 1367.” slip op. at 50
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for patent owner
“analogues for SBS, and Metzker reports actually achieving such a molecule. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence supports our determination that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success and reasonable likelihood of success in “meet[ing] the limitations” of claim 1 to the extent the claim requires using such an analogue. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc., 821 F.3d at 1367.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,868,985 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,868,985 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01149 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and the respective additional reference in each trial.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“observations from that deposition or seek authorization to file a sur-reply. In view of these circumstances, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 126
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentableNonecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 6, 2018 · IPR2017-01150 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 are unpatentable as obvious over Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and Moro, Reiter, or Remillard.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 5–10, 15, 17, 18, 29, 31, 32, 34–38, and 41–48 would have been obvious over the combination of Young ’801, Young ’121, Strubbe, and either Moro (48Pet.), Reiter (49Pet.), or Remillard (50Pet.).” slip op. at 126
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“12. Motion to Exclude Patent Owner moves to exclude paragraphs 8, 24, 27–30, 32 and 38 of” slip op. at 123
Patent outcomesUS 6,418,556 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 6,418,556
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.