- Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01220 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5 and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 9–11, and 18–26 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. 11 For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 11
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construed also undermine Petitioner’s position. “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). On the other hand, a preamble, however, “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. The only limitations in the body of independent claim 22—the two biometric sensors—are not structurally complete in themselves. Rather, the telephone handset is required to describe a structurally complete invention that includes two biometric sensors. Without the telephone handset as an element, the claim merely recites two unconnected biometric sensors without any structure—a structurally incomplete invention. Furthermore, the telephone handset recited in the preamble does not duplicate the biosensor limitations in the body of the claim. Thus, we conclude that the telephone handset is essential structure and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. This weighs toward a determination that independent claim 22 requires a telephone handset. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 389 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner, however, does not acknowledge that both Dr. Beigi and Dr. Caloyannides include electrical engineering as a field of study in the respective level of ordinary skill. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s statement that Dr. Beigi’s proposed “academic requirements do not provide this background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 34 (Dr. Beigi opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) would have a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent or related field”). Because both experts specify electrical engineering as an academic field of study but only Dr. Beigi specifies computer science, we understand the disagreement of the parties to be whether computer science is a relevant academic field of study. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that “bachelor’s level degree in electrical engineering or physics is necessary to understand both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric systems.” See PO Resp. 7. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the invention as claimed recites elements and functions using a high-level of abstraction with little, if any, technical detail regarding “the data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention.” For example, independent claims 1 and 12 recite methods that include broad functional steps of authorizing, continuously monitoring, verifying, and monitoring a biometric training with 30 little, if any, technical detail. Similarly, the call processing system recited in independent claim 13 and the biometric telephone handset recited in independent claim 22 recite elements that perform broad functions with little, if any, technical detail. Thus, the plain language of the claims undermines Patent Owner’s contention that an understanding of “both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric system” necessitate an electrical engineering or physics academic degree.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 7,494,061 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,494,061 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · PGR2015-00014 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–10, and 13–18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19–25 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach the required video-communication eligibility query and confirmation.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 16
- ExcludeDenied
“Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Petitioner’s declarant, Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D., testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or an equivalent field), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in software development (or comparable industry experience). Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; see Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Dr. Jeffay indicates that he bases his opinion of the level of ordinary skill on the disclosure of the ’525 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 30. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, adopts Dr. Jeffay’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2014 ¶ 36. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1010, 1012), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther
“Furthermore, we credit Dr. Jeffay’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate Virtanen’s voice-to-video switching in Torgersrud’s computer system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony relied on “sophistication of software packages to manage audio and video streams on personal devices available in 2014” and identified specific “Software Development Kits” available to develop software for mobile devices. Id. Moreover, he testified that an undergraduate student would have been able to implement the necessary modification and testified that he was aware of a specific example of such a system that one of his undergraduate students developed in 1995. Id. We weigh Dr. Jeffay’s testimony more heavily than Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is based on specific reasons, whereas Mr. Lipoff’s testimony lacks sufficient supporting analysis and is based on a faulty premise that a central communications processing system would need to be inserted in Torgersrud’s system. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶ 44, with Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64 (“I believe a skilled artisan would need to be familiar with communication processing systems of a controlled facility, like in” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 8,929,525 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,929,525 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00637 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious; Patent Owner’s contingent motion to amend is denied for lack of written-description support and indefiniteness.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“admitted that the patented features of voice and revoiced text are responsible for ‘giv[ing] the phone back to folks with hearing loss.’” PO Resp. 48 (emphasis added). Thus, Patent Owner is offering the statement for the truth that voice and re-voiced text gives the phone back to folks with hearing loss. Patent Owner’s argument that Mr. Puzey was discussing the existence of features in his company’s product rather than features in Patent Owner’s product does not change that his statement is offered as proof regarding an alleged long-felt need for the features. Accordingly, his testimony is hearsay. slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“art is telecommunication systems. Thus, a [POSA] is a person familiar with at least that technology by way of background and/or experience.” CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00549, Paper 71, 13 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015); see also CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., Case IPR2013-00780, Paper 35, 9 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB 2015) (reaffirming our finding in IPR2013- 00549). Patent Owner states that it “does not agree” with that definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, and that, “without waiving the foregoing objection and reserving all rights,” states that it will “appl[y]” our prior definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art “for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 3. By not setting forth arguments advocating a particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and by applying our prior definition, Patent Owner has waived arguments for any other definition. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as expressed by its declarant, Mr. Occhiogrosso. Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 26–27. This person typically has “a bachelor’s degree” slip op. at 35
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“understand a “communication link,” as claimed, to refer to the “communication line” described in the specification. In particular, the link is “intended not only to apply to a traditional land-line . . . but also to all equivalents that offer similar functionality.” Id. at 8:60–63. A link could be “a portion of the bandwidth” of a particular connection, such that a single mode of connection (e.g., IP) could carry out two types of communication (voice and text), with each type corresponding to a different “communication link.” See id. at 8:44–47, 8:63–65. For example, as explained in the ’838 patent, “[e]ach of the telephone lines could be . . . a portion of the bandwidth of an ISDN or DSL service.” Id. at 8:53–65. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s construction of “communication link” as “any communication session, protocol, link, connection, or path distinguishable from [another] communication link[].”” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“3. Combination of References As we discussed above, Petitioner’s combination takes the two-line” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,908,838 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,908,838 - Captioncall, L.L.C. / Sorenson Communications, Inc. v. Ultratec, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 7, 2016 · IPR2015-00636 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious over the identified reference combinations; the contingent motion to amend substitute claims 30–43 is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“Accordingly, we accord Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1368 (indicating the Board is entitled to weigh declaration testimony).” slip op. at 62
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“E. Level of Ordinary Skill In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“1. Terms Construed in Prior Proceedings Petitioner suggests that the terms “assisted user” and “hearing user,”” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Engelke ’405, and Mukherji would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations in claims 1–7 and 10–29, our inquiry continues because “[a] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Rather, “it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. In other words, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,917,822 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,917,822 - Arris Group, Inc. / Cox Communications, Inc. v. C-Cation Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01796 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1 and 4 over the MPT Specifications, and claim 3 over those specifications with Zdunek and Dufresne.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“art “printed publications” under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b). Pet. 16– 17; PO Resp. 23–26; Pet. Reply 3–5. The determination whether a document is a “printed publication” involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding its disclosure to members of the public. In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The key inquiry is whether the reference was made “sufficiently accessible to the public interested in the art” before the critical date. In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “A given reference is ‘publicly accessible’ upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art[,] exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” Suffolk Techs., LLC v. AOL Inc., 752 F.3d 1358, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc., 445 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “[O]nce accessibility is shown, it is unnecessary to show that anyone actually inspected the reference.” In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“3. Obviousness of Claim 1 As an initial matter, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art as a person with an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent education experience, and three or more years working in a relevant field employing digital communications technology to deliver telecommunication services, or alternatively a relevant field involving the manufacture of telecommunication products. See Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, see Ex. 2023 ¶ 25, is, according to Patent Owner’s expert, “essentially the same” as Petitioner’s proposal, id. ¶ 27.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 5,563,883 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 5,563,883 - Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00267 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–55 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v Illumina Cambridge Ltd., No. 2015-1693, 2016 WL 2620512, at *6 (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2016) (“It was [Petitioner]’s burden to demonstrate both that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.”) (internal quotation marks removed). Thus, Petitioner must explain how the combinations of Bulriss, Hesse, and Rae would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not done so. slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“teaches away from establishing connections at a scheduled time because doing so would impede or delay court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 21–25. As Patent Owner explains, the scheduling of visits to resolve issues during a court proceeding would cause unnecessary delay to those same proceedings, because at the time that the judge determines that such communications are needed, per Bulriss, they would not be scheduled as described in Hesse. Id. at 22–23. Patent Owner also points out that the subject communications arise ad hoc, they need to be addressed without delay, and are not amenable to scheduling. Id. at 23. Lastly, Patent Owner emphasizes that Bulriss is concerned with such delays and would teach away from the scheduling provided in Hesse. Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:33–67, 5:51–64, 6:4– 10). We agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to provide scheduling of video visits, per claims 1 and 30, in the context of Bulriss, in view of Hesse, for the reasons supplied by Petitioner. See Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 74, 86). Thus, for this additional reason, we are persuaded that Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that Bulris and Hesse would have rendered claims 1 and 30 obvious.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278–79 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert. granted sub nom. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 890 (mem.) (2016). Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,256,816 - Unified Patents Inc. v. Qurio Holdings, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 4, 2016 · IPR2015-01991 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5, 7–10, 12, and 14–18 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“A claim is unpatentable as obvious “if the differences between the claimed subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., No. 2015-1072, 2016 WL 798192, at *4 (Fed. Cir. March 1, 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Thus, Petitioner must explain how the combination of Lambourne and Elabbady would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not done so.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“claim limitations. Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 9–15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Moreover, it is axiomatic, that an asserted ground of obviousness must demonstrate articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Mere conclusory statements are not sufficient. Id. Furthermore, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using ‘the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.’” Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Accordingly, the central issue before us is why one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have combined Elabbady’s media catalog with Lambourne’s system in the manner proposed by Petitioner and required by the claims: by storing Elabbady’s media catalog (the recited “media database”) on Lambourne’s controller (the recited “mobile device”). Petitioner provides insufficient analysis or evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Elabbady’s media catalog with the controller of Lambourne.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“generation techniques with Lambourne’s system does not provide sufficient reasoning for why the combination of Lambourne and Elabbady would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art placing Elabbady’s media catalog on the controller of Lambourne. For a purported reason to combine the references, Petitioner states “caching metadata for the music menu would reduce network congestion and improve performance and enhance the ability to remotely control multimedia, as advocated by Elabbady and Lambourne.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1006, 1:44–53; Ex. 1005, 2:5–13; Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner’s statement, which merely restates Dr. Weissman’s testimony, is conclusory. Ex. 1002 ¶ 45 (“Given the disclosure of Lambourne, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to include this feature, because caching metadata for the music menu would reduce network communication and therefore improve performance and enhance the ability to remotely control multimedia, as both Elabbady and Lambourne advocate. EX1006 at 1:44-52; EX1005 at 2:5–13.”). Neither Petitioner, nor its declarant, explains sufficiently how the benefits of caching the music menu would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the idea of storing the media 17 catalog/database on Lambourne’s controller. Thus, we accord Dr. Weissman’s testimony in this regard little weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,787,904 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 18, 2016 · IPR2014-01283 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5 and 14–17 over Crites, Krebs, and Hodge; claims 6–13 over those references and Eisen.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“In the Decision to Institute, we construed “database,” to encompass an electronic source of data or information and does not encompass non-electronic sources of data or information. See Dec. 5–6. During the course of the trial, neither party challenged our construction of this claim term or proffered constructions of other claim terms. PO Resp. 5; Tr. 54–55. We see no reason to alter the construction as set forth in the Decision to Institute, and we incorporate our previous analysis for purposes of this decision. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Decision to Institute, we find the broadest reasonable construction of “database” to encompass an electronic source of data or information and does not encompass non-electronic sources of data or information. All other claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“in the art relevant to the ’457 Patent “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in information systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 20. Patent Owner does not offer any contrary explanation regarding who would qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the ’457 Patent (see generally PO Resp.) and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Akl, uses the level of skill in the art that is very similar to that articulated by Dr. Kaza (Ex. 2003 ¶ 33). Based on our review of the ’457 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’457 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. We note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the functions of Krebs and Hodge with the system of Crites and/or Krebs by known methods and that the combination would have been predictable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 13, 15. Patent Owner argues that the Petition and Dr. Kaza’s testimony are conclusory, are not a substitute for fact-based analysis, and should be given no probative weight. PO Resp. 9–11. Patent Owner continues that the arguments and evidence presented do not “explain the how, what, and why of the proposed combinations.” Id. at 11. Petitioner disputes these contentions pointing out that Dr. Kaza’s testimony includes analysis and that his conclusions are the results of that analysis, citing portions of Dr. Kaza’s testimony. Reply 1–4; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60. Based on our review, we credit the testimony of Dr. Kaza and we are persuaded that the Petition provides sufficient rationale to combine the references. We note that the Federal Circuit has viewed an “apparent reason to combine,” in conjunction with the technical ability to optimize, as sufficient to reach a conclusion of obviousness. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1350 (Fed Cir. 2009). We are persuaded that a sufficient rationale offered to support a combination of references is highly dependent on the natures and teachings of those references. For example, if two references disclose nearly identical embodiments with only obvious variations, the rationale to combine that must be offered would be lower as compared to combining two references having few similarities or references which are from widely different fields of endeavor.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We note that the Federal Circuit has viewed an “apparent reason to combine,” in conjunction with the technical ability to optimize, as sufficient to reach a conclusion of obviousness. Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1350 (Fed Cir. 2009). We are persuaded that a sufficient rationale offered to support a combination of references is highly dependent on the natures and teachings of those references. For example, if two references disclose nearly identical embodiments with only obvious variations, the rationale to combine that must be offered would be lower as compared to combining two references having few similarities or references which are from widely different fields of endeavor. In the instant case, we are persuaded that the similarities of the disclosures and aims of the cited references would have made the combinations obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to Hodge and Crites, both discuss the use of their systems in penal institutions or correctional facilities. Compare Ex. 1006 ¶ 42, with Ex. 1008, 1:63–67. Given the similarities in purposes of the systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would not need a high degree of motivation to incorporate one aspect of one into the other, absent some teachings away or impossibility of the incorporation. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992). With respect to Hodge and Crites, we agree with Petitioner that it would have been predictable for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate elements, such as passive monitoring of Hodge (Pet. 20), into the system of Crites. Similarly, the Petition addresses Krebs as “evidenc[ing] relationships of a person to a threat group” (Pet. 18), which is argued as being analogous to acquiring information related to suspect group members, as discussed in Crites. Id.; compare Ex. 1008, 4:41–44 (discussing a security threat group), with Ex. 1009, 49 (discussing mapping in fraud and criminal conspiracy cases). In view of Petitioner’s suggestions that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have used known methods to combine the disclosed functions and the combination would have provided predictable results, we conclude that the similarities in the cited references render the combination to be obvious.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,805,457 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,805,457 - Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2015 · IPR2015-01223 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–31 unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“for inter partes review of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,961,860 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’860 patent”). Paper 5 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Securus Technologies, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 18 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that an inter partes review should not be instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, deniedDecided for petitioner
“instituted because Petitioner failed to identify all real parties-in-interest. Prelim. Resp. 4–15. Patent Owner raised this argument, prior to the filing of” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, 793 F.3d 1268, 1278, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Congress implicitly approved the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in enacting the AIA,” and “the standard was properly adopted by PTO regulation.”). Under that standard, claim terms are presumed to be” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,961,860 - St. Jude Medical, Inc. / St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc. et al. v. Atlas IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 3, 2015 · IPR2015-00534 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 are unpatentable: claims 6, 14, and 21 as anticipated by Natarajan 1992 and obvious over Natarajan ’542 and Bantz; claim 11 as obvious over two combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“I. INTRODUCTION We have jurisdiction to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 are unpatentable. A. Procedural History St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc. (collectively, “St. Jude”) filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, 21, and 44 of U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734 (Ex. 1001, “the ’734 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Atlas IP LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On December 8, 2014, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 6, 11, 14, and 21 of the ’734 patent on asserted grounds of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Dec.”).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“by the parties as the “each” limitation: “repeating communication cycles, each of which has intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames.” E.g., Ex. 1001, 46:29–31 (claim 6). In the Decision on Institution, we construed this claim limitation “to require that each communication cycle include intervals during which the hub and remotes are allowed to transmit and receive, without requiring actual transmission of frames.” Dec. 12. We based our construction on the language of the claims, including additional language referring to “intervals . . . when the hub is allowed to transmit frames to the remotes [and] when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1001, 46:36– 39). We also considered the written description of the ’542 patent, which speaks of transmission opportunities during which remotes are provided an opportunity to transmit messages to the hub. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 12:14– 17).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“With respect to transmission by the remotes, the proper construction of the “each” limitation requires only that each cycle have one or more intervals during which remotes are allowed to transmit. See supra Section II.A.1. Period B is such an interval, as it contains allocated slots during which individual mobile stations are allowed to transmit packets to the Access Point. See Ex. 1011, 5–6; Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 118. The individual slots within Period B are also intervals. See Pet. 27; Ex. 1002 ¶ 122. Patent Owner’s argument that Period B is not an interval meeting the requirements of the claim is unpersuasive because it is premised on an incorrect claim construction requiring at least one interval in which a remote actually transmits to the hub. See PO Resp. 5–7. As explained previously, the Federal Circuit has rejected Patent Owner’s proffered construction of the “each” limitation. See supra Section II.A.1.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner relies on a combination of Bella’s time slot cancellation method with the system of Natarajan 1992 to satisfy the additional limitations of claim 11. Pet. 34–38; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 161–67. Like Bella, Natarajan 1992 describes a system in which mobile stations make reservation requests for slot allocation. Ex. 1011, 7–8; see Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 165. If a mobile station requests isochronous service, the requested number of slots will be allocated to the mobile station in Period B of every frame until the mobile station cancels the allocation by sending a cancellation request. Ex. 1011, 8; see Pet. 36, 38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Thus, Natarajan 1992 teaches “revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote,” as recited in claim 11, when the hub receives a cancellation request from the remote. See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 166–67. If the system of Natarajan 1992 instead utilized Bella’s cancellation method, which revokes a previous transmission allocation when a remote transmits no packets in a communication cycle, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that the combination would result in “the hub revoking a previous transmission opportunity allocation of a remote which has not transmitted more than a predetermined number of frames” (zero) “during a previous number of communication cycles” (one). See Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1002 ¶ 167. Furthermore, if Natarajan 1992 employed the cancellation technique of Bella, the hub would be “monitoring the frames transmitted by each remote during its transmission opportunity.” See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 162, 164. Petitioner also has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 11 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); Pet. 35–37; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 156–60. According to Petitioner, for example, the combination would simplify the cancellation method of Natarajan 1992 by allowing the hub to revoke a time slot allocation when the remote stops transmitting. Pet. 36; Ex. 1002 ¶ 158. Relying on Dr. Haas’s testimony for support, Petitioner also asserts that using Bella’s cancellation method makes even more sense when the remotes are mobile, as in Natarajan 1992, because they may move outside of the hub’s range abruptly and be unable to cancel their own reservations. Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Moreover, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s position that only ordinary skill would be required to implement the reservation and cancellation method of Bella in the Natarajan 1992 system. See Pet. 37; Ex. 1002 ¶ 160.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 5,371,734 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 5,371,734
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.