- Acxiom And Gerber v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00139 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show it had standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,860,744 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00138 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”). As Patent Owner points out, “the Petition does not supply the demand for indemnification, Acxiom’s response, or any correspondence regarding indemnification.” Prelim. Resp. 4; cf. General Electric Co. v. Transdata, Inc., Case IPR2014-01380, slip op. at 7–8 (PTAB Apr. 15, 2015) (Paper 34) (an agreement to indemnify as to a specific lawsuit was sufficient evidence of privity). Similarly, the Williamson Declaration does not provide any details as to the purported demand for indemnity nor does it inform us of Petitioner’s view as to the merits of any such demand for indemnity. Nor does Mr. Williamson testify as to whether the Agreement was in force at the relevant time. Thus, Petitioner has not provided evidence sufficient to show that it has an obligation to indemnify Gerber or any other entity that may have been sued for infringement.3 Also, as discussed” slip op. at 5
- ExcludeDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits base its standing on its relationship with AAA. See Acxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, Case CBM2015-00068, slip. op at 4–6 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2015) (Paper 23). 1128 and 1129 to be UNSEALED forty-five (45) days after the entry date of this decision.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,738,435 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00136 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not establish standing to seek covered business method review, failing to show it was a real party-in-interest or privy of a sued entity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,856,375 - Acxiom Corporation / Gerber Life Insurance Company et al. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00135 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not show that Gerber was its real party in interest or privy, leaving Acxiom without CBM standing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,999,938 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2015 · CBM2015-00140 · APJ Stacey G White · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing as a real party in interest or privy of an entity sued for infringement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied
“authority with respect to the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim.” Id. As to the Declaration, Brian Williamson, Senior Account Executive for Acxiom’s Gerber Account, declares that it is his “understanding that Gerber sent Acxiom notice of a demand for indemnification for costs and potential liabilities arising from the [patent infringement suits involving the subject patents] referencing the indemnification provision in the Services and Data Agreement.” Ex. 1128 ¶¶ 2, 6. We do not find this evidence to be sufficient to show that Petitioner has standing to bring this Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a) (stating that it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.”).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Motion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Default Protective Order and moves to seal Exhibits 1128 and 1129, as confidential pursuant to the Default Protective Order. Paper 5, 1. These Exhibits, however, are cited extensively in the Decision. Confidential information relied upon in a decision to grant or deny a request to institute ordinarily will be made public. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,760 (Aug. 14, 2012). We are not persuaded that there is sufficient reason to depart from that principle. Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Seal is denied. Accordingly, we order Exhibits” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 5,987,434 - Acxiom Corporation v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 29, 2015 · CBM2015-00068 · APJ Barry L Grossman · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Acxiom’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of CBM review because Acxiom itself did not meet the statutory standing requirement.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The burdens and requirements of a request for rehearing are stated in 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): (d) Rehearing. . . . The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Acxiom asserts that “from oversight or misapprehension” (Req. Reh’g 3) the” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for patent owner
“(emphases added). The statute further defines a “person” who may file a CBM petition as “a person who is not the owner of a patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 321(a).2 We construe the statute to mean that a person, such as a corporate petitioner, may file a CBM petition only if that individual entity, or its real parties in interest or privies, have been sued for, or charged with, infringement. See Joe Matal, A Guide to the Legislative History of the America Invents Act: Part II of II, 21 FED. CIR. B.J. 539, 626 (2012) (“[A] party may petition for a proceeding only if that party or its real parties in interest or privies have been ‘sued for infringement of the patent or . . . charged with infringement under that patent. ’” (emphases added)).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,352,317 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2014-00735 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol; claim 15 is unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol and DeLorme.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“testified regarding Degnbol’s “incognito” mode. Ex. 1017, 215:22–218:22. Petitioner moves to exclude this redirect testimony as beyond the scope of Mr. Zatkovich’s Declaration (Ex. 2017) and Petitioner’s cross examination. Paper 43 (Mot. to Exclude), 1–3. Patent Owner does not cite to or rely on this testimony. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 36
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of 3 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that it did not include in its Response any patentability argument distinguishing the prior art under its proposed construction of “user sending status.” Tr. 13:7–14:16. Instead, Patent Owner points to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, which Patent Owner admits is not cited in its Response. Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 81–89). Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “user sending status,” Patent Owner has waived any patentability arguments based thereon, as they were not raised in the Response. See, e.g., Paper 27 (Scheduling Order), 2–3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 4 Petitioner, citing Dr. Heppe’s testimony, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent thereof, and one to two years of experience in the field of computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications networking.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 3). Patent Owner neither contends that this is incorrect nor proposes an alternative. On the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent that Patent Owner’s characterization of the Specification’s description of “transmit status” is accurate, it is not consistent with how the term “user sending status” is used in claim 7. Specifically, claim 7 recites that “the central unit receives the user sending 2 The Specification generally uses the term “central server,” while the claims generally use the term “central unit.” The parties do not argue that these terms should be accorded different meanings. Reading the claims in light of the Specification, we understand these terms to be synonymous. status from the second mobile communications device and the information defining the locations of the first and the second mobile communications devices” and “if there is a match and depending upon the user sending status, effects the transmission to the first mobile communications device of locating information.” As Petitioner points out (Reply 18), claim 7 specifies that the central unit receives from the second mobile communications device both a user sending status and information defining location of the second mobile communications device. The user sending status is used by the central unit, along with the information defining the device’s location, to determine whether to send locating information to another device. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, and the explanation provided by Mr. Zatkovich, would exclude the second communications device from transmitting to the central server the very information specifically recited in claim 7. Because Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, specifically his statement that “[t]he purpose of the user sending status in this example is to enable and disable the transmission of locating information from device 19 to the central server,” Ex. 2017 ¶ 56, is directly contradicted by the language of claim 7, the testimony lacks credibility. Moreover, as explained in the Decision to Institute (Dec. 11–12), the Specification describes embodiments in which the transmit status is transmitted to the central server and controls whether the central server transmits locating information to another device. Ex. 1007, 6:44–50, 8:1–7, 9:3–8, 10:50–59, 11:24–29. These passages provide additional support for Petitioner’s proposed construction of “user sending status.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction would exclude these embodiments.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes examples of “locating information” that indicates that a mobile device is within a certain proximity but without specifying a specific location. Indeed, in this Figure 5 embodiment (Ex. 1007, 14:22–32), the term “locating information” is used to describe information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. We conclude that a construction excluding such embodiments would be unreasonably narrow. See Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note that Patent Owner does not offer persuasive evidence that the Specification defines “locating information” or excludes or disavows locating information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. Patent Owner also argues that our construction “ignores the word ‘locating’” and “conflates the notions of ‘locating information’ and ‘proximity/profile data.’” PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner argues that proximity/profile data is distinct from locating information. Id. at 13–16. We agree with Patent Owner that locating information is distinct from proximity/profile data, but disagree that our construction conflates the two. According to the ’593 patent, in determining whether to send locating information, a central server evaluates profile data and proximity data to determine whether there is a match. Ex. 1007, 8:54–9:2. Locating information is not merely the profile and proximity data, nor is proximity/profile data sent to the mobile devices. Rather, the central server sends to a mobile device locating information that indicates to the mobile device that the profile and proximity data have been successfully matched. Id. at 9:3–8. Our construction of “locating information” is directed to the information transmitted by the central server, rather than the information received by the central server. As to reading the word “locating” out of “locating information,” Petitioner, in reliance on Dr. Heppe, argues that “information, sent as a consequence of a proximity test, is ‘locating information’ because information about a device’s proximity to known locations provides information about that device’s location.” Reply 3 (quoting Ex. 1014 ¶ 2). We credit Dr. Heppe’s testimony and agree with Petitioner. We conclude that our construction neither ignores “locating” nor conflates “locating information” with proximity/profile data.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 6,618,593 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,618,593 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Black Hills Media, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2015 · IPR2015-00336 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, and 13–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Degnbol, with claim 15 also relying on DeLorme.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the Specification describes examples of “locating information” that indicates that a mobile device is within a certain proximity but without specifying a specific location. Indeed, in this Figure 5 embodiment (Ex. 1007, 14:22–32), the term “locating information” is used to describe information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location. We conclude that a construction excluding such embodiments would be unreasonably narrow. See Epos Techs. Ltd. v. Pegasus Techs. Ltd., 766 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“A claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We note that Patent Owner does not offer persuasive evidence that the Specification defines “locating information” or excludes or disavows locating information that is not usable to arrive at a specific location.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither party proposes a construction of “based upon the information defining the locations of the first and the second mobile communications devices.” Nevertheless, Patent Owner argues that “locating information” is further qualified by this claim language. PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, in reliance on Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony, “[l]ocation information must include information about the locations of at least two devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶ 49). The plain language of the claims recites “based on,” rather than “includes.” Patent Owner does not persuasively argue that information “based on” the locations of two devices necessarily must include the two locations. Indeed, in the truck example Patent Owner cites (Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:46–57)), the information Patent Owner identifies as locating information is a transmission by the central server of a convenient meeting place, which, presumably, includes the location of neither truck. Mr. Zatkovich testifies that in instances such as textual directions and a video of the route to be travelled, “the ‘locating information’ is based on and derived from the locations of both devices.” Ex. 2017 ¶ 49. We agree. Nevertheless, information that indicates to a user that a second user is within a certain proximity of a first user also is based on and derived from the locations of both devices.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” We resolve the question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art;4 and (4) objective evidence of 3 At the oral hearing, Patent Owner admitted that it did not include in its Response any patentability argument distinguishing the prior art under its proposed construction of “user sending status.” Tr. 13:7–14:16. Instead, Patent Owner points to the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, which Patent Owner admits is not cited in its Response. Id. (citing Ex. 2017 ¶¶ 81–89). Even if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “user sending status,” Patent Owner has waived any patentability arguments based thereon, as they were not raised in the Response. See, e.g., Paper 27 (Scheduling Order), 2–3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”). 4 Petitioner, citing Dr. Heppe’s testimony, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would typically have at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent thereof, and one to two years of experience in the field of computer communications, telecommunications, and/or communications networking.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 3). Patent Owner neither contends that this is incorrect nor proposes an alternative. On the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of skill in the art. nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“communications device transmitting data defining its own location, these systems mentioned in Degnbol know the positions of the network’s cellular tower and use this information to derive the location of a communications device. To summarize, Degnbol’s cellular tower infers the location of communications devices.” Ex. 2017 ¶ 63. We understand Mr. Zatkovich to be testifying that Degnbol’s reference to “GPS” is a reference to the GPS coordinates of the cellular towers, rather than the GPS coordinates of the mobile telephones. Mr. Zatkovich does not cite to evidence other than Degnbol in reaching this conclusion. In reply, Dr. Heppe testifies, “a person of ordinary skill would understand Degnbol to teach (among other things) a ‘mobile-based’ position determination method with GPS receivers in (or associated with) the mobile devices.” Ex. 1014 ¶ 15. Dr. Heppe also relies exclusively on Degnbol’s disclosure in reaching his conclusion. Patent Owner argues that Degnbol has no explicit disclosure of mobile devices including GPS transceivers and that Degnbol’s distinction between “network-based” and “mobile-based” position calculation is “cryptic.” PO Resp. 27–28. The logical reading of Degnbol’s disclosure is that mobile- based methods, such as tracking a mobile phone’s position through receipt of GPS information from the phone, are distinct from “network-based” techniques, such as triangulation. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 5:7–9 (“several determination methods, such as triangulation methods, GPS . . .”). As Dr. Heppe points out (Ex. 1014 ¶ 15), Figure 1 of Degnbol depicts a wireless network receiving “position reports” from users. To the extent there is any ambiguity, this is persuasive evidence that Degnbol’s cellular phones transmit information about their positions, such as GPS coordinates, to a central server. In consideration of all of this evidence, we find that Degnbol teaches first and second mobile communications devices “for transmitting information defining a location of” each device.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 6,618,593 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,618,593 - Acxiom Corporation / AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v. Phoenix Licensing, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 11, 2015 · CBM2015-00068 · APJ Barry L Grossman · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because Acxiom did not establish standing to seek covered business method review of claims 1, 9, 16, 18-25, 34, 49, 50-52, and 57.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityInstitution denied rpiDenied
“business method patent review of the patent unless the petitioner, the petitioner's real party-in-interest, or a privy of the petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” 37 CFR § 42.302(a). Thus, Acxiom may acquire standing if (1) Acxiom has been sued for, or charged with, infringement of the patent for which it seeks review; or (2) if a party sued for, or charged with, infringement, is Acxiom’s real party-in-interest; or (3) if the party sued for, or charged with, infringement is a privy of Acxiom. Id. Petitioner has not directed us to persuasive evidence that it has standing under any of these options. The Petition does not assert that Acxiom has been sued or charged with infringement. We have not been directed to persuasive evidence that either Ford Motor Company or AT&T Mobility LLC, the parties sued for infringement of the ’317 patent, are Acxiom’s real party-in-interest or are privies of Acxiom. The allegation that Acxiom is a privy of one or more parties who have been sued for infringement (Pet. 20), even if supported by evidence, would not establish standing for Acxiom. During the September 2011 Senate debates on the AIA, Senator Schumer indicated that the word “privy,” in the context of § 18 of the AIA, “effectively means customers of the petitioner.” 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer). Thus, for example, the fact that Ford has been sued for infringement of the ’317 patent does not thereby confer standing on every privy, or customer, of Ford to file a request for a covered business method patent review. Under the applicable statute and rules discussed above, in order to confer standing on Acxiom, the party sued must be a privy of Acxiom, not the” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,352,317 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Brixham Solutions, Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 27, 2015 · IPR2014-00425 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–15, and 17 are unpatentable as obvious over either Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens or Halabi, RFC 3386, and Owens.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“In reply, Petitioner cites KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), noting, “KSR set forth a number of ‘Exemplary Rationales’ that support an obviousness finding . . . . Many of these rationales apply here and support the obviousness of the claims.” Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner describes in detail why it would have been obvious to combine Hofmeister with RFC 3386 and Owens, under several rationales set forth in KSR: combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; using known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way; applying known techniques to known methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results; and using teachings, suggestions, or motivations in the prior art to modify or combine references to arrive at the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 6–10. As Petitioner contends, it would have been a natural fit and a predictable step for a [person having ordinary skill in the art] to use the Setup/Holding priority described in Hofmeister to make preemption decisions during network failure . . . to take advantage of well-known protection mechanisms, such as those in RFC 3386/Owens. Pet. Reply 10–11. We determine that Petitioner has provided adequately articulated reasoning for combining Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens, supported by rational underpinnings, that are reasonable. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–15, and 17 are obvious in view of Hofmeister, RFC 3386, and Owens.” slip op. at 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Opp. to Mot. to Excl. 6–7. While we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s motion is procedurally defective for the reasons argued by Petitioner, for purposes of this decision we also review Patent Owner’s substantive arguments, which we also determine to be lacking in merit. Patent Owner argues that Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1027 should be excluded due to the “general evasiveness” of Dr. Lavian and “interference of counsel.” Mot. to Exclude 1. Petitioner contends that Dr. Lavian’s responses were not evasive but were proper, and Petitioner’s objections to the “content” and “form” also were proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). Opp. 8–13. Patent Owner responds that it “seeks to exclude the entirety of Dr. Lavian’s declaration . . . because of the behavior of the witness and his counsel at the deposition.” PO Reply 1. We agree with Petitioner that Dr. Lavian’s responses were not “evasive.” For example, Patent Owner’s argument directs us to a specific portion of the deposition where Dr. Lavian was asked, “did you add that element, 584b?” Mot. to Exclude 2 (quoting Ex. 2003, 34:18). We agree with Petitioner that this “only concrete example of this supposed ‘evasiveness’ identified” by Patent Owner concerns not the ’652 patent being challenged herein, but rather, the patent at issue in IPR2014-00431. Opp. 11. Although Patent Owner states that “this type of evasiveness pervaded the entirety of the deposition,” (Mot. to Excl. 3), based on our review of Ex. 2003, we are persuaded that Dr. Lavian responded to Patent Owner’s questions to the best of his ability and was not “evasive.” We further agree with Petitioner that its deposition objections were proper. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8)(“Any objection to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, including the qualifications of the officer, is waived unless made on the record during the deposition and preserved in a timely filed motion to exclude.”). Based on our review of Ex. 2003, Petitioner’s objections were directed to the content, form, or manner of taking the deposition, and, therefore, were proper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.53(f)(8). We are also not persuaded that the alleged behavior of opposing counsel, alone or “in combination with the other occurrences at the deposition” (Mot. to Exclude 4), is a sufficient basis to exclude Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1027. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion. As noted in our Decision to Institute, however, we reiterate that we have not considered any of Petitioner’s arguments made solely by virtue of incorporation by reference from either of the Lavian declarations. See supra n.1; Dec. to Inst., 11–12 n.1.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Bachelor’s in computer science, electrical engineering, or the equivalent; and at least 7 years of professional experience in network communications and Internet protocols, or an advanced degree and 4 years’ experience.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 46). Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that an express definition of the level of ordinary skill is not required. The level of ordinary skill in the art can be reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown.”) (internal quotations omitted); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Here, Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill, and Petitioner has not provided a sufficient explanation as to how its specific proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill (for example, the importance of the inclusion of “at least”) affects the analysis in this case. Therefore, we find the level of ordinary skill in the art to be reflected in the cited references and we determine that no express statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art is required.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further contends there would have been no motivation to combine Hofmeister with RFC 3386 and Owens. PO Resp. 5–6. Patent Owner’s support for its arguments is the Declaration of Dr. George N. Rouskas, to which we accord little weight because his testimony is conclusory and unsupported by evidentiary explanations. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). At the oral hearing, Patent Owner’s counsel stated that “we heard [Petitioner’s] presentation about all this prior art out there that talks about preempting network traffic, and it’s legion. . . . And yes, it’s true, again, as with the other references, this is a concept that people would have known reading all of these references, prioritizing, working traffic under normal operating conditions.” Tr. 18:1–2, 28:11–14. Thus, Patent Owner concedes the existence of references disclosing the recited limitations in the challenged claims, but nevertheless argues that there is not any motivation to combine such references.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,940,652 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,940,652
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.