- PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00120 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, and 26–34 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the § 103 challenges.
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.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“2 While the ’230 patent is currently involved in a parallel district-court case, Petitioner argues that “[i]nstitution is appropriate under Fintiv . . . .” Pet. 157. Petitioner also states that “if this proceeding is instituted, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the district court the grounds in the Petition or any ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Petition.” Id. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s argument. Accordingly, and in view of Petitioner’s stipulation, it is not necessary to reach Petitioner’s discretionary denial arguments. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to section II.A)).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, or a closely related field and one year of experience working with connectors.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5–17, 79–84). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’230 patent specification and 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 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds. 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 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,191,230 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00119 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim despite finding Wong was not shown to be prior art.
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 1–17 of the ’760 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 36–42). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’760 patent specification and 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 › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:15–17, 7:49–51, 8:6–8, 9:10–12). We agree with Patent Owner that “slidably” in claim 1 requires that some continuous surface-to-surface contact must occur. Patent Owner further argues, however, that the figures, such as Figure 12A of the ’760 Patent, provide minimal clearance between the remote/latch release. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. These figures merely depict embodiments of an optical fiber connector after final assembly. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:51–57 (stating that Figure 12A depicts “one embodiment” and that Figure 12B is a top view of the Figure 12A connector). We do not discern anything about the word “slidably” or claim 1 that requires minimal clearance after assembly. We also do not discern anything about claim 1 that requires that, for example, the inner portion of the groove slide against the lower portion of the latch release. Rather, the inner portion of the groove must be above to “receive” the lower portion of the latch release. How does it receive it? It does so “slidably.” The recitation is met so long as the inner portion of the groove is configured such that it can receive the lower portion of the latch release via any sliding. Neither the inner portion nor the lower portion, in particular, must have sliding surface-to-surface contact. In a similar way, neither the outer portion of the groove nor the narrower portion of the latch release must have sliding surface-to-surface contact. Thus, rather than importing a minimal clearance requirement into claim 1’s “slidably” recitations and rather than requiring that specific components must slide (when the claim does not state as much), we understand, for example, “the inner portion of the groove being configured to slidably receive the lower portion of the latch release” to mean that the inner portion of the groove has structure capable of receiving the lower portion of the latch release via a sliding motion. Such sliding could include any degree of surface-to-surface contact between parts; for example, the bottom surface of the latch release could slide along the upper surface of the groove. Similarly, “the outer portion of the groove being configured to slidably receive the narrower portion of the latch release” means that the outer portion of the groove has structure capable of receiving the narrower portion of the latch release via a sliding motion.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“connectors. Pet. 14–16. Petitioner argues that Raven teaches a connector that includes two ferrules and that Kuffel teaches an MPO connector that contains MT ferrules. Id. at 15–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004, 5:16–27; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 150–151). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kuffel’s MPO connectors (which contain MT ferrules) would be used to increase density within data transmission networks. Id. at 16 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:8–14; Ex. 1007 ¶ 147; Ex. 1015; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1027). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Raven’s two ferrule connector to use an MT ferrule (as Kuffel teaches) and argues that such a modification would improve Raven’s device in the same way as described in Kuffel. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 152–154). Petitioner argues that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 155). Petitioner argues that the modification (1) is supported by the disclosures of Kuffel and Raven, (2) represents a simple substitution, and (3) would enable Raven to incorporate a multi-fiber connector. Id. at 20–23 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 159–169). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner adequately establishes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Raven and Kuffel with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,415,760 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00118 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–28 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Nhep and Watanabe.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’413 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“1 Petitioner states that “if [this proceeding is] instituted, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the district court the grounds in the Petition or any ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Petition.” Pet. 113. In view of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not discretionarily deny institution. Katherine” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and three years of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic connectors; (2) a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least one year of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic connectors; or (3) industry experience (at least three years) designing fiber optic connectors in lieu of a formal degree. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–50). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’413 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“C. Claim Construction We interpret the challenged claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. 8 The present record does not include any objective evidence of nonobviousness. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner states that it “does not believe any claim terms require specific construction and thus should receive their plain and ordinary meaning, in the context of the ’413 patent specification, under the Phillips standard.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 91–93). For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,340,413 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00121 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–53 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Lee and Raven render claim 1 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’701 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundOther
“Petitioner argues that “the prior art provides a motivation” to make Petitioner’s modifications. Id. at 20. In particular, Petitioner relies on Raven’s teaching (discussed above in Section III.D.2) that “it is not uncommon for the installers to get confused between transmitting and receiving cables.” Ex. 1006, 1:13–25. Raven continues that this can make it “necessary for the installer to replace the existing cable or remove the connecting head from the fibres and effectively remanufacture the cable on site, which is very cumbersome and time consuming.” Id. at 1:32–35. Raven describes that its addresses the problem by disclosing a “fibre optic cable assembly and a method for changing the polarity of first and second optical fibres in a fibre optic cable assembly.” Id. at 2:17–19. Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modifications to “Lee’s connector to change polarity easily.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 193–200); see also id. at 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 221) (arguing the proposed modifications would have allowed “the polarity of Lee’s connector to be altered easily without the need to remanufacture the cable.”). Petitioner also argues the following: [T]his modification involves applying a known technique (Raven’s removable latch configuration) to a similar device (Lee’s connector) in the same way (providing latch couplings on exterior walls of a connector housing to receive a removable latch). A POSITA would have understood that there are a finite number of ways of making Lee’s latch arm 28 removably coupled to the exterior walls of its connector housing.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had “at least an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, or a closely related field and one year of experience working with connectors.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117–128). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional relevant experience can compensate for a lack of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’701 patent specification and the prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the Petition “affords all terms their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–131). For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,181,701 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00116 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 22–40 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that US Conec would prevail on at least one claim, including anticipation of claim 23 by Nguyen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and we institute an inter partes review as to all challenged claims of the ’369 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“1 Petitioner states that “if instituted, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the district court the grounds in the Petition or any ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Petition.” Pet. 102. In view of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not discretionarily deny institution. Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022), at 3–4, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_ discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_ 20220621_.pdf; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to section II.A).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have been a person having: (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and three years of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic connectors; (2) a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, physics, or a related field and at least one year of experience in fiber optics and fiber optic connectors; or (3) industry experience (at least three years) designing fiber optic connectors in lieu of a formal degree.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,307,369 - PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00115 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–22 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 as obvious over Scherer and Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“h. Conclusion for Claim 1 We determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1 as obvious in view of Scherer and Lee.” slip op. at 17
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Other
“1 Petitioner states that “if instituted, Petitioner stipulates not to pursue in the district court the grounds in the Petition or any ground that reasonably could have been raised in the Petition.” Pet. 102. In view of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not discretionarily deny institution. Katherine K. Vidal, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022), at 3–4, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_ discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_ 20220621_.pdf; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to section II.A).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to modify Scherer’s connector in two ways. Pet. 14. First, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious “to orient first and second optical fiber ferrules along the transverse axis of Scherer’s connector.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 128–133). Second, Petitioner asserts it would have been obvious “to modify Scherer’s extender 330d and lever 360a such that the edge defining the front end of the opening slides longitudinally along the upper surface of the lever 360a when the extender 330d is pulled rearwardly to depress the lever 360a.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 134). Addressing the first modification, Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to arrange an array of fibers perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fiber, and the choice between the horizontal and vertical axes is “merely choosing one of the few and finite available options.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 135–144). Petitioner contends that, in view of the dual connections shown in Scherer Figures 11–13, it would have been obvious to modify the connector of Scherer Figure 14 “to make multiple connections from a single optical fiber transmission line 52a.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 135–144), 20 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 145–159). According to Petitioner, Lee provides an alternative solution for making multiple connections from a single optical fiber cable. Pet. 16, 21. Petitioner contends that a desire for increased connector density would have motivated a POSITA “to modify Scherer’s connector hood to include multiple ferrules positioned relative to the lever as disclosed in Lee.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 135–144), 22. Petitioner’s first modification relates to claim elements 1.1 and 1.3, as discussed below. Pet. 19–22, 26– 27.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim language using the district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner asserts that the “Petition affords all terms their ordinary and customary meaning.” Pet. 4. For purposes of this Decision, no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,307,369 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87
- Strike new argumentDenied
“comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00315 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 on all petition grounds, granted joinder to IPR2024-00137, and authorized withdrawal of Samsung’s Sotera stipulation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Carriers’ parallel district-court case. The arguments and facts are substantively the same as those presented in the T-Mobile IPR, except Petitioner here is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case. In the T-Mobile IPR, we found that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile 6 See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. Because Petitioner in the instant proceeding is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case, we find that factor 5 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution in the instant proceeding. Regarding the other factors, for the same reasons discussed in the decision to institute in the T-Mobile IPR, we find that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2 and 3 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. We turn to Patent Owner’s arguments based on the Petitioner’s parallel district-court case. Our analysis of factors 1 and 4 is the same as that presented in the T-Mobile IPR because no stay has been requested in Petitioner’s parallel district-court case and Petitioner has agreed to be bound by the same stipulation submitted in the T-Mobile IPR. Joinder Mot. 1. Based on the facts presented by the parties, including the May 5, 2025 trial date, we find that factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh marginally in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. Taking “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11, 6), we conclude that the evidence of record and our analysis of factors 1–5 relating to both district-court cases favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Regarding factor 6, for the reasons discussed in our institution decision in the T-Mobile IPR, we determine, on this preliminary record, that the merits here are compelling. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unpatentability as the ones on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 21–56, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 25–60. Indeed, Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a ‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in” the T-Mobile IPR and the “expert declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert declaration in” the T-Mobile IPR and is “signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner states that its arguments on the merits in its Preliminary Response “are likewise ‘copycat’ of the merits arguments Patent Owner presented in its preliminary response in IPR2024-00137.” Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1. We instituted inter partes review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888 Patent on May 22, 2024, based on the petition filed in the T-Mobile IPR after consideration of all arguments and evidence presented by the parties including Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response. T- Mobile IPR, Paper 15. For the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution in the T-Mobile IPR, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one claim of the ’888 patent is unpatentable. See id. Accordingly, we find the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g., Joinder Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the T-Mobile IPR. See Joinder Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will simplify briefing and discovery. See Joinder Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly, joinder to the T-Mobile IPR would further the goals of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Therefore, for the reasons given, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,094,888
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.