- PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00946 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–12 and 14–22 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that PPC would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented in the Petition, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–12 and 14–22 of the ’342 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“In addition, Petitioner contends that a POSITA would understand that Brochure in combination with Blunt teaches the “first flange configured to engage the first frame” and the “second flange configured to engage the second frame.” Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65–75; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 96–97, Figs. 3, 11; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1001, 10:50–53). Specifically, Petitioner argues that a POSITA would understand that when the separable cable reel disclosed in Blunt is inserted into the bag in Brochure, “the ‘first flange’ is ‘configured to engage’ the ‘first frame’ in the base of the bag and the outer engaged with the ‘first frame.’” Id. at 40. Petitioner reasons that a POSITA would understand that the cable reels of Brochure and Blunt are similarly configured when the cable reel in Blunt is assembled. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). According to Petitioner, a POSITA would know that when the Blunt cable reel is inserted into the Brochure bag, the outer side of the flange first inserted into the bag (i.e., the “first flange”) is configured to engage with the first frame at the base of the bag in Brochure. Id. Petitioner explains the same is true for the outer side of the second flange, which is the flange facing out of the bag cover. Id. At this stage, we note that the preliminary evidence supports Petitioner’s contentions that Blunt teaches reel 34", flange 42", core 36", and separate flange 40". Ex. 1004 ¶ 96, Fig. 11. Further, Dr. Eldering’s unrebutted testimony supports Petitioner’s position that a POSITA would have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34", within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Dr. Eldering also testifies a POSITA would understand the environmentally friendly advantages of replenishing the supply of cable in the cable reel installed in the Tote bag. Id. ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 107). Upon review of the preliminary record and based on the evidence and” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes “the plain meaning of each claim term can be applied.” Pet. 5. For purposes of this Decision, we do not expressly construe any terms. 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 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,988,342 - PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00947 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–8 on all petitioned grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Brochure and Blunt.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For reasons provided below, we determine, on behalf of the Director (see 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a)), that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). We therefore institute the petitioned inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the ’471 patent “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in physics or engineering and experience with the installation of cable,” and “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4; Ex. 1002 ¶ 15. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’471 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Therefore, we adopt it in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“terms need construction and the plain meaning can be applied.” Pet. 5. Petitioner asserts claim 4’s “means for releasably coupling” limitation (Ex. 1001, 12:21–27, pg. 20 (Cert. of Correction)) is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and Petitioner provides a corresponding construction. See Pet. 5–6. For reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner’s challenge to claim 1 provides a sufficient basis to justify institution of review regardless of claim 4, so we do not reach this claim construction issue at the present time. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (authorizing institution of inter partes review if there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims). Based on our review of the record at this preliminary stage, we determine no explicit construction of any claim term is needed to decide whether to institute review. 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 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to implement a two-component reel structure, such as Blunt’s cable reel 34ʹʹ, within Brochure’s cable reel apparatus. See Pet. 28–34, 36–38, 49–52. This would have been done, according to Petitioner, in order to permit the user to “replenish the supply of cable in Brochure’s cable reel when it is exhausted in an environmentally friendly way.” Id. at 28 (emphasis added); Ex. 1002 ¶ 57. Petitioner points out that Brochure describes its system as being “Environmentally-Friendly,” and alleges that Blunt similarly describes how its two-component reel 34ʹʹ can “be replenished with a new supply of cable when the cable supply in the reel is exhausted such that the reel would be reused in ‘an environmentally friendly manner.’” Pet. 28–29 (quoting Ex. 1006; Ex. 1004 ¶ 107) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 19, 73, 89); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Specifically, according to Petitioner, using Blunt’s replenishable two-component reel in Brochure “would be environmentally friendly because it would save cost and reduce waste since the entire cable reel does not have to be disposed.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 19; Ex. 1005, 1:21–25, 4:33–57, Fig. 6); Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Petitioner also asserts this modification could have been achieved with a reasonable expectation of success, given various similarities between Brochure’s and Blunt’s rotatable mounting of a cable reel, and related teachings in those and other prior art references. See Pet. 29–32; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 59–61. Petitioner further provides illustrations of how a person of ordinary skill in the art might have implemented this combination. See Pet. 32–34; Ex. 1002 ¶ 62. Upon review of the foregoing, we determine Petitioner’s contentions regarding the motivations that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to use, with a reasonable expectation of success, Blunt’s two-component cable reel structure within Brochure’s cable dispensing apparatus, are sufficiently articulated and supported by the evidence of record to justify institution of review.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,001,471 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityInstitutedPTAB · Dec 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“§ 315(b) is unavailing. Rule 42.104(b) requires a petitioner to state in its petition “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed” and “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art.” 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.104(b)(3), (b)(4). The Petition states “[t]he Board construes the claims ‘using the same claim construction standard that would be used’ in district courts.” Pet. 20. We disagree that Rule 42.104(b) or the CTPG requires Petitioner to make any specific statement if it takes the position that no express construction of claim terms is required. Rather, the CTPG states that “a petitioner may include a statement that the claim terms require no express construction.” CTPG 44.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“We use a two-part framework to analyze a request to exercise discretion to deny institution under § 325(d). First, we determine “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Second, if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, then we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of [the] challenged claims.” Id. In applying this framework, we refer to the non-exclusive factors delineated in Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph). These factors are: a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; b) the cumulative nature of asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; d) the extent of overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “in 2003 would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner, at this stage of the proceeding, does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 9. We find, on the current record, that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 19
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner propose no express construction for any claim term, at least with regard to the alleged obviousness grounds of unpatentability. See Pet. 20. In regard to the alleged anticipation grounds, Petitioner contends “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep,” and asserts this is an “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court. Id. at 68, 70. Patent Owner proposes no express construction of any claim term and states “no claim terms are in controversy.” Prelim. Resp. 10. In light of our determinations below, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of rendering this Decision. See Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘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 20
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Darfon Electronics Corp. v. Michael ShipmanInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-01008 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution under § 325(d), finding the asserted art cumulative of art previously presented to the Office and no material Office error shown.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use [a] two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“(a) THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in twelve grounds of unpatentability (Pet. 7). Generally, Patent Owner contends that the Petition should be denied as to all challenged claims (see Prelim. Resp.). We do not reach whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. For reasons discussed below, we discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,942,581 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00245 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable as obvious over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe; claims 2 and 3 are also unpatentable as obvious over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. / LG Electronics Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2022 · IPR2021-00990 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–4 are unpatentable under §103: claims 2–3 over Tayloe and the TI Datasheet, and claims 2–4 over Lam, Enz, and Tayloe.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s option (a) is substantially the same as Petitioners’ proposal—both require a bachelor’s degree in the same or a related subject and two additional years of related work experience. Patent Owner’s option (b) adds an additional option based on work experience in lieu of a formal degree. Neither party contends that the difference in their proposals affects the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that it does. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art in the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’444 patent, and the opinion of Dr. Steer. Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include option (b) from Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The terms storage module and storage capacitance, as used herein, are distinguishable from the terms holding module and holding capacitance, respectively. Holding modules and holding capacitances, as used above, identify systems that store negligible amounts of energy from an under-sampled input EM signal with the intent of “holding” a voltage value. Storage modules and storage capacitances, on the other hand, refer to systems that store non-negligible amounts of energy from an input EM signal. Ex. 2029, 66:59–67 (emphases added); see Ex. 2016, 39–40 (discussing Patent Owner’s prior arguments to construe “storage module” in IPR2014- 00948). When defining certain terms in a section titled “General Terminology,” the ’551 patent repeatedly uses the phrase “when used herein” in combination with the phrase “refer(s) to.” See, e.g., Ex. 2029, 13:56–15:27 (mentioning a term followed by “when used herein,” followed by “refers to,” followed by a definition). For example, the ’551 patent states, “[t]he term digital signal, when used herein, refers to a signal that changes between discrete states, as contrasted to a signal that is continuous.” Id. at 15:7–9. As shown, the ’551 patent defines “digital signal” by stating “when used herein” followed by “refers to.” And, the same sentence also provides a comparison between “digital signal” and a signal that is continuous. Even though the passage describing “storage module” is not listed under the “General Terminology” section of the ’551 patent, the passage provides the same indications that the patentees clearly and unambiguously intended to define the term “storage module” by stating “as used herein” and “refer to”—hallmarks that the patentees were providing a lexicographic definition of the term. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An applicant’s use of the phrase ‘refers to’ generally indicates an intention to define a term.”) (citing In re Imes, 778 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Microsoft Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 731 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1049, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Additionally, as with the term “digital signal,” the above-passage provides a comparison between “storage module” and “holding module” and uses the definitions of the terms to compare and contrast them. “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (citing CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). “It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the term.” Id. (citing Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com, 582 F.3d 1341, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). That is precisely what the patentees did in the above-passage. Specifically, we find that they clearly set forth a definition that is different than the plain and ordinary meaning and, in so doing, clearly expressed an intent to redefine the term. That the patentees intended to redefine the term “storage module” is clearly expressed by the use of “as used herein”16 and “refers to” in the above-passage and is consistent with the patentees’ use of these same phrases when defining other terminology in the ’551 patent, as discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“Generally . . . the preamble does not limit the claims.” Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A term in the preamble is a limitation only if it “recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” TomTom, 790 F.3d at 1323. We agree with Petitioners that “wireless modem apparatus,” as recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3, is not limiting. In particular, “wireless modem apparatus” does not provide antecedent basis for any term subsequently recited in claims 2–4; it does not provide any essential structure because the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention; and it is not necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. Further, Patent Owner’s argument that the preamble is limiting because it makes clear that the input signal is input to a wireless modem apparatus is unavailing because the body of claims 2 and 3 expressly recite, as the first element, “a receiver for frequency down-converting an input signal.” See Ex. 1001, 60:48–49 (claim 2), 61:2–3 (claim 3). And, Patent Owner’s arguments make clear that its attempt to read “wireless modem apparatus” as limiting is solely for the purpose of arguing that claims 2–4 require a transmitter, which is a structural element that is not recited in the claims. See, e.g., PO Resp. 72 (arguing that Tayloe does not disclose a transmitter), 79 (raising the same arguments directed to Lam). When the patentees intended to limit a claim to a transmitter, they expressly recited a transmitter in the body of the claim. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 61:25–57 (Claim 6 recites “[a] wireless modem apparatus, comprising,” and expressly recites “a receiver” and “a transmitter” in the body of the claim.). Accordingly, for each of these reasons, we find that “wireless modem apparatus” recited in the preambles of claims 2 and 3 is not limiting. slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Additional Terms Petitioners propose that we construe the following three terms: “frequency down-conversion module,” “subtractor module,” and “under-samples.” Pet. 15–18. Patent Owner responds to Petitioners’ constructions for “frequency down-conversion module” and “subtractor module.” PO Resp. 39–41. On the full record before us, none of the parties’ arguments nor the outcome of this proceeding hinge on the construction of these additional terms. Accordingly, we need not construe them expressly to resolve the present disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,110,444 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,110,444 - Snap Inc. v. Sanderling Management Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 31, 2022 · IPR2021-00780 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–16, 18, 19, 21–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Hogeg.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner, however, that the patentee acted as his own lexicographer with the passage from column 6 discussed by the parties. Indeed, the sentence at issue begins with the exact same term—“distribution rule”—and continues by explaining what that term “is.” See Ex. 1001, 6:13– 14 (“A distribution rule is a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users . . . .” (emphasis added)); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (the Abstract, providing that “[a] distribution rule is used to target a group of end users . . . ”). As argued by Patent Owner, this is sufficiently clear language to express an intent by the patentee to define that term. See PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (stating that “the word ‘is,’ again a term used here in the specification, may ‘signify that a patentee is serving as its own lexicographer’”); see also Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“To act as a lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ and ‘clearly express an intent to redefine the term.’” (quoting Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Further, we disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the definition should include the rest of the passage in column 6 (i.e., the language from “for instance” to the end of the sentence). See Pet. Reply 4. By beginning with “for instance,” the express language of that portion of the sentence makes clear that it merely provides examples of “rule[s]” that fall within the definition previously provided in the sentence, as acknowledged by Petitioner and Mr. Parulski. Cf. id. (“The language following that clipped by [Patent Owner] (‘for instance . . . ’) is what provides ‘distribution rules’ examples.”); Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 15 (“The language following that identified by [Patent Owner] (beginning with ‘for instance, a rule . . . ’) provides examples of what a ‘distribution rule’ may be.”).6 For these reasons, we construe “distribution rule” in elements 1b and 18c in the manner proposed by Patent Owner—“a rule used in determining how to target a group of end-users.”” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner discusses the term “digital media content processing function” in claims 1 and 18 (Pet. 21–23), but states that “the Board needn’t construe [that term] to determine patentability” (Pet. 23). We did not construe that term in the Decision on Institution (Dec. Inst. 26–27), and Patent Owner takes the position in the Response that that term still does not need construction (PO Resp. 11). We continue to agree with both parties that “digital media content processing function” need not be construed because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe 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 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends, with accompanying declaration testimony, that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree, or the equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, and 2–3 years of experience in research, design, or development of mobile imaging systems and related hardware, software, and firmware, or equivalent experience.” Pet. 19. According to Petitioner, “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience, or more education and less experience, may also meet this standard.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Parulski Pet. Decl. ¶¶ 173–174). Prior to institution, Patent Owner did not address or dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition, stating that it “appear[ed] consistent with the record at th[at] stage of the proceeding, including the prior art.” Dec. Inst. 26. In the Response, Patent Owner also does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp 10–11. We maintain the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted as of institution.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“The record supports Petitioner’s argument that the system in Hogeg “targets a group of end-users” in that it assesses which of the users are, for example, at a specific location and then sends only those users a visual editing function relevant to the users’ location. For example, in a passage cited by Petitioner as to a “conditional selection process to select/distribute a subset of functions” (Pet. 33), Hogeg discloses that “if the positional data is indicative that the visual content was captured in New York, a visual content editing function which provides an overlay of the statue of liberty and/ or a sound overlay of the song New York [N]ew York may be provided.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 58, cited at Pet. 33. This system “target[s] a group of end-users” in New York based on sensor data in that other end-users—such as ones indicated as being in California—do not receive the New York overlay. Patent Owner attempts to distinguish Hogeg’s process in that the content editing functions are sent in response to image selection by the user. See PO Resp. 16 (“Thus, what Hogeg discloses is a process for sending content editing functions ad hoc based on the characteristics of specific pieces of content that are manually identified by a user. Nothing in Hogeg, however, teaches a system or process capable of targeting a group of end-users based on a sensor data condition from their mobile devices.”). This distinction, however, is not supported by the claims. Elements 1b and 18c require a certain type of “distribution rule”— specifically one “defining a sensor data condition”—which Hogeg teaches for the reasons discussed above, but the claims do not preclude a user initiating the overall process with selection of an image. Stated differently (by Petitioner in the Reply), “whatever initiates Hogeg’s process makes no difference to Hogeg’s ‘distribution rules’” because “Hogeg’s content editing functions are still distributed according to, for example, client terminal location . . . and therefore Hogeg still uses distribution rules that target end users (e.g., users at a particular location).” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Parulski Reply Decl. ¶ 40)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 10,108,986 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,108,986 - Amphenol Corp. v. PPC Broadband, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 26, 2022 · IPR2022-00721 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–19, 21–33, 35–43, 45–50, and 52–62 on both grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Youtsey, Lionetto, and Horak.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“When applying § 325(d), we utilize a two-part framework. See Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). First, we determine “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office.” Id. Second, “if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied,” we consider “whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Id. In the second part, we consider: (i) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (ii) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in evaluating the asserted prior art; and (iii) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art. Id. at 10–11 (citing factors (c), (e), and (f) of Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential)).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“analysis overlook that the specific solution proposed by Petitioner’s combination is much simpler than that suggested by Patent Owner. Patent Owner acknowledges the negative effects of RF interference and Petitioner’s evidence, including the discussion in the background section of the ’083 patent, establishes on this record that it was known that preventing RF interference was an important consideration in cable connector design, and that interference is particularly disruptive where an electromagnetic buffer is not provided by an adequate electrical and/or physical interface between the port and the connector. See, e.g., Pet. 17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:51–67) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61–62). Petitioner’s evidence also establishes that Youtsey’s o-rings protect a center conductor from degradation due to moisture. See id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:19–22, 2:14–16, 5:50–53). And, Horak specifically provides that a conductive, compressible o-ring can address both issues by blocking RF interference and sealing from the weather, e.g., moisture. See id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009, 5:4–7; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64–66). Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art needed to be motivated to create a coupler-body grounding path in particular, as opposed to being motivated to modify Youtsey such that the connector was not only sealed off from moisture (which Youtsey already taught), but also blocked RF interference, which was a known issue of concern and which Horak taught could be addressed with the same component that also seals off from moisture. Thus, Horak’s teaching, as applied to Youtsey’s o-rings, results in the element that Patent Owner asserts does not exist in the prior art—a coupler-body grounding path—whether or not creating that coupler-body grounding path was a specific, intended goal prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to Youtsey. Accordingly, on the present record, Patent Owner’s argument does not detract from Petitioner’s stated motivation and reasons for the proposed combination.” slip op. at 62
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s piecemeal arguments in response to Petitioner’s analysis overlook that the specific solution proposed by Petitioner’s combination is much simpler than that suggested by Patent Owner. Patent Owner acknowledges the negative effects of RF interference and Petitioner’s evidence, including the discussion in the background section of the ’083 patent, establishes on this record that it was known that preventing RF interference was an important consideration in cable connector design, and that interference is particularly disruptive where an electromagnetic buffer is not provided by an adequate electrical and/or physical interface between the port and the connector. See, e.g., Pet. 17 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:51–67) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 61–62). Petitioner’s evidence also establishes that Youtsey’s o-rings protect a center conductor from degradation due to moisture. See id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007, 1:19–22, 2:14–16, 5:50–53). And, Horak specifically provides that a conductive, compressible o-ring can address both issues by blocking RF interference and sealing from the weather, e.g., moisture. See id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1009, 5:4–7; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 64–66). Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art needed to be motivated to create a coupler-body grounding path in particular, as opposed to being motivated to modify Youtsey such that the connector was not only sealed off from moisture (which Youtsey already taught), but also blocked RF interference, which was a known issue of concern and which Horak taught could be addressed with the same component that also seals off from moisture. Thus, Horak’s teaching, as applied to Youtsey’s o-rings, results in the element that Patent Owner asserts does not exist in the prior art—a coupler-body grounding path—whether or not creating that coupler-body grounding path was a specific, intended goal prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to make the proposed modification to Youtsey. Accordingly, on the present record, Patent Owner’s argument does not detract from Petitioner’s stated motivation and reasons for the proposed combination.” slip op. at 62
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, . . . would be led in a direction divergent 9 Lionetto teaches that leaf spring 22 also provides electrical contact through the conductors. Ex. 1008, 2:34–36. from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). We do not agree with Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led in a direction divergent from that taken by Patent Owner. Although we agree with Patent Owner that Lionetto attributes importance to annular leaf spring 22, Lionetto also attributes importance to conductive elastomer gasket ring 34. In particular, Lionetto expressly attributes the electrical contact to both the spring and the gasket ring. See Ex. 1008, 2:34–36 (“the electrical contact is essentially through the leaf spring 22 and a conductive elastomer 34 against which the tapered surface 27 abuts”). And, Lionetto’s claims repeat the importance of both structures in providing continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression. See id. at 2:50–58 (claim 1) (“an annular electrical spring contact member which functions to provide continuous annular outer conductor electrical contact and RFI suppression . . . even during slight conductor misalignment”), 3:14–20 (“A connector of claim 1, and further comprising an electrically conductive elastomer gasket ring, carried on said male member against which said outer end taper of said female member may engage and compensates for misalignment of said male and female connector halves when fully engaged, providing continuous circumferential electrical contact and RFI suppression.”). Thus, Lionetto supports a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to use an annular spring, a conductive gasket ring, or both to provide continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression across the connector. But, we disagree with Patent Owner that Lionetto would have led one of ordinary skill in the art away from using a conductive gasket ring in Youtsey, as proposed by Petitioner, because, as explained above, Lionetto uses a conductive gasket ring and expressly attributes the benefits noted above to its use (i.e., continuous electrical contact and RFI suppression). slip op. at 56
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,225,083 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00793 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27, and 28 for both § 103 grounds based on Muthukumarasamy alone and with Hayward.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. (Interim Procedure 3, 9). Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation: Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised” during this proceeding. (Pet. Reply to POPR 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18‒19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original)). Thus, in light of Petitioner’s stipulation, we do not exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Preliminary Determination Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claim 1.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts a “person of skill in the art (‘POSA’) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems” (Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 45–49)). Petitioner further asserts “[w]ith more education, for example, postgraduate degrees and/or study, less more experience can substitute for formal education” (id.). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion (see Prelim. Resp. 24). Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ528 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 12) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of educational experience indefinitely without an upper bound, i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ528 Patent and the prior art of record (cf. Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that we “need not construe any claims” to resolve this controversy and that it “adopts” Patent Owner’s “proposed plain and ordinary meaning for all terms [from] the parallel district court action” (Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 50; Ex. 1014)). Patent Owner does not assert any particular claim construction at this stage in the proceeding (Prelim. Resp. 24). On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction (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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,782,528 - PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00794 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, and 6–8 for both asserted obviousness grounds: Muthukumarasamy alone and Muthukumarasamy with Hayward.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the PTAB will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Interim Procedure 9. Here, Petitioner has filed a stipulation: Petitioner has stipulated that if the Board institutes IPR on this Petition, it will not pursue in the related district court proceeding “any ground that [Petitioner] raised or reasonably could have raised” during this proceeding. Paper 7 at 4 (citing Interim Procedure 3; Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 at 18–19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020); 35 U.S.C. § 315(d); Ex. 1017) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the foregoing reasons, on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ʼ289 Patent is unpatentable. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is: ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes is instituted on all the challenged claims with respect to all grounds set forth in the Petition; and FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review of the ’289 Patent is instituted commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is given of the institution of a trial.” slip op. at 39
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion. See Prelim. Resp. 21. Based on the present record including the disclosure in the ʼ289 Patent, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 14) with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of educational experience indefinitely without an upper bound, i.e. “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or equivalent experience) and two years of experience designing or implementing interactive systems with networked media or media playback systems.” We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ289 Patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that we “need not construe any claims to resolve [this] controversy” and that it “adopts” Patent Owner’s “proposed plain and ordinary meaning for all terms [from] the parallel district court action.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1014). Patent Owner does not assert any particular claim construction at this stage in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 21. On this record, we determine that no terms or phrases in the claims require express construction. 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 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,904,289
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.