• ROKU, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc And Intent Iq, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2023 · IPR2022-01236 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 13–17 or 19–26 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “method of targeting advertisements based on mutual information sharing between IP-addressed devices on a common network” (id. at 25, see id. at 26–27 (similar articulations of combination)). We are not persuaded the Petition sufficiently explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Baum’s teaching. In particular, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why Madhavan would require the teachings of Baum to operate in an environment using dynamically assigned IP addresses. As such, it is unclear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply Baum’s edge routers and techniques for determining that multiple dynamic-IP addressed devices are connected to a common LAN in order to achieve the claimed invention. “The obviousness inquiry does not merely ask whether a skilled artisan could combine the references, but instead asks whether ‘they would have been motivated to do so.’” Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Petition sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Madhavan and Baum to achieve the claimed invention, including the electronic association based on connection to a common LAN limitation, unequivocally identified in the Petition as taught by the combination of Madhavan and Baum (see Pet. 37, 40–41). We also agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “a mere assertion that references are analogous art provides no reason for the specific modification proposed by the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted); see Pet. 25–26 (asserting that Madhavan and Baum are analogous art to the ’398 Patent). establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 13 is unpatentable as obvious over Madhavan and Baum. Due to the dependency of claims 14–17, 20–23, and 26 ultimately from independent claim 13, (see Ex. 1001, 24:62–25:14, 25:26–39, 25:47–50), and for the same reasons as those addressing claim 13, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of dependent claims 14–17, 20–23, and 26 are unpatentable over Madhavan and Baum.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “In particular, we are not persuaded that the alleged beneficial result of the combination presented in the Petition––e.g., “facilitat[ing] targeting of advertisements based on associations of device identifiers (e.g., IP addresses) in networking environments where device IP addresses are dynamically assigned and therefore subject to change” (Pet. 26, see id. at 25–27 (similar articulations of benefit)), provides sufficient articulated rationale to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would “apply Baum’s techniques for recognizing that particular device IP addresses connect to the Internet via a particular edge router and thereby determining method of targeting advertisements based on mutual information sharing between IP-addressed devices on a common network” (id. at 25, see id. at 26–27 (similar articulations of combination)). We are not persuaded the Petition sufficiently explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Baum’s teaching. In particular, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why Madhavan would require the teachings of Baum to operate in an environment using dynamically assigned IP addresses. As such, it is unclear that a person of ordinary skill in the art would apply Baum’s edge routers and techniques for determining that multiple dynamic-IP addressed devices are connected to a common LAN in order to achieve the claimed invention. “The obviousness inquiry does not merely ask whether a skilled artisan could combine the references, but instead asks whether ‘they would have been motivated to do so.’” Adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Petition sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Madhavan and Baum to achieve the claimed invention, including the electronic association based on connection to a common LAN limitation, unequivocally identified in the Petition as taught by the combination of Madhavan and Baum (see Pet. 37, 40–41). We also agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “a mere assertion that references are analogous art provides no reason for the specific modification proposed by the Petition.” Prelim. Resp. 28 (emphasis omitted); see Pet. 25–26 (asserting that Madhavan and Baum are analogous art to the ’398 Patent).” slip op. at 19

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “F. Discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 Patent Owner argues that the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution of inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314. See Prelim. Resp. 28–42. Because we deny institution on the merits of the proposed patentability challenges to claims 13–17 and 19–26, we need not address Patent Owner’s arguments urging discretionary denial of institution.” slip op. at 22

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “April 2007 would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in electrical and/or computer engineering or a related field and 2-3 years of experience in computer and networking systems including systems for online content delivery such as targeted advertisements” and that “[a] person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard.” Pet. 8 (citing challenge Petitioner’s definition. See Prelim. Resp. 4–5. For the purpose of deciding whether to institute, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’398 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,677,398
• Bank Of America, N.A. v. Nant Holdings IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 1, 2023 · IPR2021-01304 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove a rational reason to combine Ogasawara and Bolle or a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDenied

    “We credit Dr. Bajaj’s (Patent Owner’s expert) testimony that Bolle requires a stationary camera and spatially registered images for purposes of segmentation via Bolle’s Figure 3a and 3b embodiments, which we find to be well-aligned with Bolle’s disclosure and the complete record before us. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 ¶ 33. We find Dr. Bajaj’s testimony on this issue much more credible than Dr. Rodriguez’s (Petitioner’s expert) testimony to the contrary, which we find to be misaligned at best with Bolle’s explicit disclosures discussed above. See, e.g., Ex. 1050 ¶ 51 (Dr. Rodriguez testifying that Bolle’s Figure 4 shows a stationary camera, but Bolle allegedly is not limited to using a stationary camera; and that Bolle’s segmentation techniques do not require “exact alignment,” merely “approximate[]” alignment of images, without explaining how or why the skilled artisan would have interpreted Bolle in that way); Ex. 2008, 97:22– 99:6 (testifying on re-direct to the same); see also Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Board is “not required to credit [a party’s] expert evidence simply because [the party] offered it”); TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This court’s opinions have repeatedly recognized that conclusory expert testimony is inadequate to support an obviousness determination on substantial evidence review.”); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 42

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Considering the subject matter of the ’036 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Rodriguez (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–47).” slip op. at 12

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “in the District Court Case entered a Markman order construing the Recognizes Limitation, among others. See Ex. 2006, 16–18, 21–22.4 Specifically, the court construed the Recognizes Limitation to mean “recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to recognition parameters associated with the known targets to find a match.” Ex. 2006, 21–22 (emphasis added). As explained in our Institution Decision (Dec. 17–19), we have reviewed the district court’s reasoning, as well as the ’036 patent and other evidence of record before us, and agree that for reasons given by the district court, the Recognizes Limitation should be given the same construction as determined by the district court. Neither 4 Unless otherwise specified, citations to exhibits use the page numbers assigned by the parties, not the original page numbers. party since has urged (or persuaded) us to revise this construction. Based on the complete record before us, we continue to construe the Recognizes Limitation to mean “recognizes the target as a known target from the target database based on comparing parameters derived from the digital representation to recognition parameters associated with the known targets to find a match.” See Dec. 17–19; Ex. 2006, 21–22. Both parties adopt this construction for purposes of their post-institution arguments in this case. See PO Resp. 18–19 (“Patent Owner and its expert apply this claim construction in their analysis in the remainder of this IPR, but do not necessarily agree it is correct.”); see generally Pet. Reply (arguing “matching” as per this construction); Pet. (same).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “modifier. The definite article “the” can be used to modify something plural, e.g., “the digital representations.” Although in claim 1, “the” is used to modify a “digital representation,” that does not help the Patent Owner, because nothing in the claim excludes the involvement of additional digital representations while one “digital representation” is analyzed. Patent Owner points to nothing in claim 1 which restricts the analyzing to “only” one digital representation or “no more” than one digital representation, and we see none. Further, claim 1 uses the non-limiting phrase “comprising,” which creates a presumption that the claim is not limited to only those elements expressly recited in the claim. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We recognize that the only embodiment described in the specification of the ’036 patent analyzes only a single digital representation, but we are not required to construe the claim as limited to just that embodiment. Innova/Pre Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1121–22 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Such a construction is neither encouraged nor presumed. Id. Additionally, Patent Owner points to no expressions of disavowal either in the prosecution history or in the specification of the ’036 patent with regard to “a digital representation” in which the patent applicant disavows, with clarity, claim scope covering analysis of more than one digital representation. For the foregoing reasons, we disagree with Patent Owner, and we determine that analyzing “a digital representation” as recited in claim 1 does not preclude involvement of an additional digital representation or digital representations in the analysis.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,478,036 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,478,036
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01204 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12, 13, and 15–20 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12, 13, and 15–20 of the ’285 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “district court trial dates are set to occur before the issuance of the Board’s final written decision. The facts and reasoning of Fintiv are, at a minimum, only applicable to cases in which a trial date has been set by the district court in a copending litigation. But here, as will be discussed below, the parties agree that no trial date has been set, and the District Court has stayed the litigation. Prelim. Reply 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (“There has never been a trial date). Furthermore, that stay will continue until our final determination should we decide to institute trial. Without a trial date, we see no need to engage in a full analysis of the Fintiv factors, as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial. Nevertheless, we address the Fintiv factors below13 and explain our reasons for not exercising discretion to deny institution based on § 314(a).” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “While we recognize that the plain language and grammar of the claims supports Petitioner’s proposed construction, we have also considered the District Court’s adopted construction and Patent Owner’s arguments which find support in the written description of the ’285 patent. In the end, however, we need not resolve this dispute at this time. Because the Petition provides sufficient evidence that the prior art references disclose the claimed functional groups, biomolecules, or organic dyes under either construction, it is not necessary for us to construe this claim term at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “including Petitioner’s Reply Brief (Paper 10, “Reply Br.”) and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Brief (Paper 11, “Sur-Reply Br.”), we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposed definition reads into the claim a numeric threshold for solubility from an embodiment that is nowhere apparent from the claim itself. Reply Br. 1–2. “[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in original). Although courts must read a patent’s claims in light of the specification, see, e.g., Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998), that obligation does not authorize “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims,” which is characterized as “one of the cardinal sins of patent law,” SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Confining the scope of “capable of imparting solubility” to an unexpressed minimum solubility taken from one of the Specification’s embodiments crosses that line. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1432–34 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claims to a co-polymer improperly interpreted to include two properties). In view of the foregoing, we construe the phrase “a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to not require any particular numeric threshold of solubility. No further construction of the claim is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties with respect to institution of trial.. See Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,365,285
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01208 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim of the ’303 patent. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialNot reached

    “1 Because we deny the Petition on the merits, we do not address the parties’ arguments related to discretionary denial.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a Ph.D. degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 9–10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not choose between the parties’ proposed levels of one of ordinary skill in the art, which are quite similar, as neither party asserts that the anticipation or obviousness analyses in this case would turn on which definition is adopted. See, e.g., id. at 10 (noting that the arguments and conclusions reached in the Preliminary Response “would not change” if Petitioner’s definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan were applied).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “structure of Formula (Ia),” including specific MU, L1 and L2, G1 and G2, n, and a, b, c, and d (which define the mol % of each unit within the structure) constituents, wherein each R group must be a “[n]on-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Ex. 1006, 239:29–240:56. The ’303 patent expressly defines the phrase “[n]on-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” to refer to “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solutions with no visible particulates.” Id. at 54:31–34. In view of structure of claim 1 and the express definition provided in the ’303 patent, we agree with Patent Owner that claim 1 requires that the non-ionic side group R must be capable of imparting solubility to the claimed conjugated polymer (having constituents that satisfy the claimed variables noted above) in excess of 10 mg/mL. Prelim. Resp. 13. On this record, it is not sufficient to show that a particular R group is capable of” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,575,303
• Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sirigen II LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01207 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–14, 18, and 19 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Thus, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–14, 18, and 19 of the ’620 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “be lifted for each patent for which the petition is denied. As noted above, there are six related petitions at the Board involving the patents before the court. The district court stayed the litigation “pending resolution of the IPR proceedings that have been instituted on the patents at issue in this case.” Ex. 2006, 2. Regarding the length of the stay, the district court explicitly ordered the parties not to use continuance of the fact discovery to October 28, 2022 “as grounds for . . . opposing institution of any post-grant proceeding.” Ex. 2007, 2. Regarding when the stay will be lifted, the order merely gives Patent Owner the opportunity to “seek to lift the stay as to any patents that are not instituted for review.” Ex. 2006, 2 (emphasis added). But we decline to speculate whether the district court would grant such a motion directed only to one of the six patents. Among the reasons warranting a stay of the litigation, the district court found “IPR has the potential to streamline issues for trial” and “the resources the parties will need to expend for experts could be significantly impacted by the outcome of any instituted IPR proceedings.” Id. Thus, the litigation is stayed pending the outcome of the six related proceedings, not merely the outcome of this institution decision, and the district court stayed the litigation for the explicit purpose of gaining efficiency and avoiding duplication of efforts by letting this inter partes review proceed to its conclusion first.14 See Prelim. Reply. 4–5. While Patent Owner may seek to lift the stay as to any patent for which institution is denied, the grant of any such request is uncertain. Accordingly, this factor strongly weighs against discretionary denial of institution.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have at least a Ph.D. degree in chemistry, or a bachelor’s or master’s degree plus experience involving the use and design of fluorescent probes or dyes.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 14–18). Patent Owner agrees that a POSITA may have a Ph.D. degree or master’s degree in chemistry, but asserts that a POSITA would also have “some experience with fluorescence” in addition to a degree in chemistry and that the experience of a POSITA with a master’s degree in chemistry is alternatively “industry experience in the field of biological detection systems.” Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 7). For purposes of this Decision, we need not choose between the parties’ proposed levels of one of ordinary skill in the art, which are quite similar, as neither party asserts that the anticipation or obviousness analyses in this case would turn on which definition is adopted. See Prelim. Resp. 10 (Patent Owner stating that its arguments and conclusions “would not change” if Petitioner’s definition were applied).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for patent owner

    “The express language of claim 1 requires no solubility threshold, and dependent claim 10 demonstrates that where a solubility threshold was intended by the inventors of the ’620 patent they knew how to expressly set forth that threshold in the claims. Compare Ex. 1005, 213:26–27 (“capable of imparting solubility in water”), with id. at 218:12–14 (“The method according to claim 1, wherein each R is a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.”). Thus, the claim language does not support applying a particular solubility threshold in claim 1. As noted by Patent Owner, the written description of the ’620 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, each R is independently a non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water in excess of 10 mg/mL.” Id. at 54:2–10; Prelim. Resp. 12–13. This solubility threshold, however, is not in claim 1, and we decline to import such a limitation from the written description into claim 1 absent compelling reasons for doing so. See SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that “reading a limitation from the written description into the claims” is “one of the cardinal sins of patent law”); see also Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am., LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation. We do not read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words.”). In view of the foregoing, we construe the term “non-ionic side group capable of imparting solubility in water” to not include any particular numeric solubility threshold.13” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,288,620
• Code200, Uab / Teso LT, Uab et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 12, 2022 · IPR2022-01109 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied joinder and denied institution on all challenged claims and grounds because the petition was time-barred under § 315(b).

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied

    “Practice Guide instructs us that a party seeking to maintain multiple challenges to the same patent claims carries a heavy burden of establishing that multiple petitions are necessary. Petitioner contends that Patent Owner has not carried that burden. Joinder Opp. 1. We agree. Petitioner has not explained why the 1492 IPR is an insufficient challenge. It is true that the 135 IPR involves Plamondon, another reference. But Petitioner has not explained how Plamondon differs from Crowds, Border, or MorphMix, or why granting joinder with the 135 IPR would be in the interest of justice, given Petitioner’s involvement managing the1492 IPR challenging substantially the same claims. In the words of our Trial Practice Guide, Petitioner fails to show “why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” TPG 60. We see no evidence in the record suggesting that The Data Company is unqualified to manage the 135 IPR, or that Petitioner would add anything significant to that proceeding in its understudy role.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barInstitution denied time barInstitution denied

    “III. DENIAL OF INTER PARTES REVIEW It is undisputed that Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’319 patent more than one year prior to filing the Petition in this proceeding. See Joinder Mot. 2; Joinder Opp. 1. Accordingly, in view of the denial of the requested relief of joinder with the 135 IPR, institution of inter partes review as requested by Petitioner is barred by statute. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b). IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Because Petitioner is barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) from seeking inter partes review of the ’319 patent, we deny the Petition and do not institute review as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 13

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Not reached

    “For the reasons described below, we deny Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Furthermore, we deny the Petition as time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). We do not reach Patent Owner’s additional contentions including those based on Fintiv or General Plastic.” slip op. at 3

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 10,257,319
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2021-00853 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8, 12, and 13 were not proven unpatentable because the asserted combinations lacked a persuasive basis for achieving the claimed system with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’725 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. 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)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not ask that this claim language be expressly construed or contest Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. See Resp. 11–15. Although it is not necessary for our final decision in this proceeding to construe this claim language because it is not essential to our conclusions on patentability, as it is uncontested, we adopt as our own Petitioner’s proposed construction of “imaging device configured to acquire point by point image data from locations distributed throughout a volume of a crystalline lens.”” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the disputed term “automatically” in this context, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain meaning of the term “automatically” is that the “control system” can, on its own and without human intervention, perform the subsequently recited step. Resp. 11–15; see also Pet. 10 (Petitioner agreeing this is the plain meaning). This is supported by the Specification, which states, inter alia, that “the entire system is controlled by the controller CPU” and describes alternative embodiments where (1) the system is fully in control and where (2) user input identifies targets. Ex. 1027, 12:23–25, 13:25–44, Figs. 14, 15. However, we also agree with Petitioner that just because the claimed “control system” is configured/programmed to perform (i.e., capable of performing) some tasks “automatically” (i.e., entirely on its own), this does not mean user input (e.g., from a surgeon) must be altogether excluded. Pet. 10–11. In fact, user input must be possible and is within the scope of the independent claim. “By definition, an independent claim is broader than a claim that depends from it, so if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well.” Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Here claim 2, requiring automatic target identification, and claim 5, requiring user input on target identification, each depends from claim 1 and illuminates its scope, which must be broad enough to encompass both. Thus, although requiring (in claim 1) that a “control system” can perform certain recited functions, and that some are performed (according to claim 2) “automatically,” that same “control system” must also be capable of allowing a user input on the locations of targets for laser treatment (according to claim 5). Such optional user input required by dependent claim 5 is described in the Specification, which includes embodiments where a surgeon can adjust the size, location, and shape of the treatment pattern, can determine the optimal cutting contours in patients, and can provide “user input” to define targets or adjust computer-defined parameters as necessary. Ex. 1027, 10:55–45; 10:67–11:2, 13:25–55, 13:63–14:2. Regardless, the configuration of independent claim 1’s “control system,” which must be programmed to and capable of performing its own recited steps/functions, is not diminished by the requirements of either dependent claim. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corporation, 831 F.3d 1350, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he language of a dependent claim cannot change the scope of an independent claim whose meaning is clear on its face.”).” slip op. at 22

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “generally. “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact,” and this “requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1366–67. Based on the record, we conclude that, even if it would have been potentially advantageous to in some way incorporate the use of Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging and measuring into Swinger’s system and method for cataract surgery (for example, to replace the use of ultrasound imaging with OCT), we agree with Patent Owner that, other than the (ultimately) conclusory testimony of its witness Dr. Izatt (see, e.g., Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 110, 144, 151, 161, 163–165, 168), there is no persuasive evidence that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with the result being a control system configured to (automatically or not in practice) image cataractous eye tissue, identify the targets therein (capsule and lens) to be cut with a laser, and then operate that laser to actually make those cuts based in some part on that imaging. See Resp. 15–34. We credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that, as of the invention, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have relieved the surgeon of responsibility for identifying cutting regions for laser capsulotomy and cataract surgery (as taught by Swinger), and relegated such task to a computer, which subsequently performs the procedure. Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66; see also Ex. 2088 ¶¶ 56–59, 68–71 (Dr. Walter testifying similarly). Dr. Kang takes issue with Petitioner’s positions that Baikoff and Li teach or suggest such reliance on a computer because, according to Dr. Kang, neither Baikoff nor Li (and indisputably not Swinger) teaches using a computer to identify laser cutting regions or to control laser surgery, and, in fact, they suggest reliance on a surgeon to interpret their OCT images to plan a subsequent surgery. See, e.g., Ex. 2087 ¶¶ 36–38, 42, 46, 62–66. We further credit Dr. Kang’s testimony that Petitioner fails to adequately explain, even were the ordinarily skilled artisan intent on combining Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems with Swinger’s cataract surgery system, how it would have been accomplished to overcome the “substantial challenges” and achieve the claimed invention. See id. ¶¶ 63– 66; see also Resp. 27–28 (addressing Petitioner’s lack of explanation as to how to implement the combination).19 We agree that, beyond merely suggesting plugging one system into another, Petitioner does not explain how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have programmed Swinger’s computer control system to use Baikoff’s and Li’s OCT imaging systems and tissue recognition and measurement algorithms to determine capsulotomy cutting regions and then implement the planned cutting with a laser, even from a rudimentary perspective. See Pet. 35–40. Indeed, Petitioner concedes:” slip op. at 50

  Patent outcomesUS 9,125,725 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,125,725
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00846 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Swinger, Weikert, and Benedikt (claims 1–8), and with L’Esperance added (claims 9–12).

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties present compelling evidence that those of skill in the art would include individuals with experience in ophthalmology, as well as in the research, manufacture, and design of medical optics or medical lasers. Pet. 25; PO Resp. 8. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such experience. Rather, teams of individuals with design laser surgery systems intended to make incisions in the lens of the eye. Accordingly, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been an ophthalmic surgeon or someone with a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as optical engineering, with experience in researching, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., Ph.D. or five or more years to compensate for lesser degrees). Such individuals would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “cataract incision” and “a delivery system for delivering the laser beam to the target tissue to form a cataract incision.” Pet. 7–9. Patent Owner provides a construction for the term “cataract incision.” PO Resp. 10–11. Upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, including the fact that neither party disputes that Weikert expressly discloses cataract incisions under either parties’ interpretation of that term, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “A petition must “identify with particularity the grounds for institution and evidence supporting such grounds,” including “the prior art relied upon and evidence that it qualifies as such.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)). The Petition identifies the grounds for institution and the evidence supporting such grounds, and presents evidence that Weikert qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 5–6, 27–28. For example, Petitioner and Dr. Lubatschowski assert that CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY “is a quarterly review series comprising chapters written by well-known specialists,” and that Weikert was included in the 2005 edition of CATARACT AND REFRACTIVE SURGERY as Chapter 14: Refractive Keratotomy: Does it Have a Future Role in Refractive Surgery? Ex. 1001 ¶ 73; Pet. 5–6, 27–28.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Benedikt describes its combined topometer/OCT imaging device as providing a “previously unattainable comprehensive topometerical/topographical illustration of the cornea” and discloses using this comprehensive data to automate corneal laser surgery. Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 39, 46; Pet. 55–56. In contrast to the comprehensive illustration of the cornea provided by Benedikt’s system, Petitioner demonstrates that HeNe beams are limited to visualizing the surface of eye tissue at a single point. Ex. 1070 ¶¶ 32–34; Pet. Reply 23; Ex. 1073, 254:2–14; Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 29–31. As Petitioner proposes to use the system of Swinger to make incisions in the cornea, which Benedikt’s system can image comprehensively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to implement Benedikt’s imaging device to aid Swinger’s corneal surgery procedure(s). (2)” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,376,356 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,376,356
• Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2022 · IPR2021-00840 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 8–16, and 22–35 not unpatentable because the proposed combinations failed to establish the claimed control system and reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “art appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’732 patent; however, we also agree with Patent Owner that such a definition should be flexible enough to include a person with a lesser academic degree and having experience working in the field, such as an engineer with clinical experience in ophthalmic surgery, as well as also including a medical doctor, such as an ophthalmic surgeon with experience working with medical optics and lasers, and that these people may collaborate. 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)). Such an expanded definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art, including aspects of both parties’ definitions, is appropriate here, based on our review of the record. Thus, we find that the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been someone with a PhD, MS, or BS degree in physics, biomedical engineering, or a related science such as nuclear engineering, having more or less experience in research, manufacturing, or designing medical optics or medical lasers (e.g., 5 years for a PhD or more to compensate for lesser degrees), or an ophthalmic surgeon, but that such persons would have worked in collaboration with one another to fill any necessary gaps in knowledge (e.g., the engineer would consult the medical doctor on clinical issues or physiology and the medical doctor would consult the engineer on technical issues). This definition marries the two proposed by the parties and is appropriate in view of the record.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party seeks an express interpretation of any claim language. Pet. 7–8; see generally Resp. Therefore, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language here. However, in our analysis below, as required for the sake of clarity, to resolve ambiguity, and for consistency with our decisions in the related proceedings addressing similar claim language and similar prior art, we address the claim language and its meaning as argued by the parties. We do so in accordance with the above-noted standards of law. C. slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “The presence or absence of a reasonable expectation of success is . . . a question of fact.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Id. at 1367. The evidence of record suggests that the ordinarily skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention based solely on Swinger’s, Baikoff’s, and Li’s teachings. Further, as our reviewing court has explained, “references to ‘common sense’—” or an ordinarily skilled artisan’s ordinary creativity, “whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.” DSS Tech. Mgm’t, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 855 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Perfect Web Techs. Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Although here Petitioner has not wholly omitted any reasoned analysis or evidence regarding the claimed computer control system programmed to automatically plan a cutting region based on image data and then perform that planned laser-cutting of the lens capsule (and, for some claims, also the lens), this subject matter is not disclosed in any cited art and we find Petitioner’s evidence and reasoning as to why it would have been obvious without such disclosure to be largely conclusory and unpersuasive. slip op. at 44

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Inter partes review must proceed in accordance with the Petition and the arguments set forth therein. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369. Arguments made in a different document, such as an expert’s declaration, may not be merely incorporated-by-reference in the Petition (Petitioner does not even do so much). 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); see also General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App’x 654, 658 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion in enforcing its rules under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 9,107,732 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,107,732
• Metacluster LT, Uab v. Bright Data Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00687 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–14, 16, 17, 20–24, and 26–32 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the filing date of the provisional application to which the ‘622 Patent claims priority, had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications. Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 18). According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed qualifications of a [person of ordinary skill in the art] (Petition at 12) are not materially different at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in this IPR.” Prelim. Resp. 20. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’622 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art, and does not materially differ from Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “claim construction standard as that applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Petitioner offers a discussion of claim constructions for the following terms and phrases: “client device,” “first server,” “selecting, in response to the receiving of the [first/second] URL,” the first server “sending . . . to the [first/second] web server using the selected IP address,” and “using the selected IP address as a source address.” See Pet. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:21–22, claims 3–4; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 54–55; Ex. 1005, 8; Ex. 1010, 3–4, 10–12; Ex. 1011, 5, 11–15; Ex. 1012, 2; Ex. 1013, 2–5, 7–12; Ex. 1014, 6). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the claim constructions for “client device,” “first server,” and “source address.” See PO Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 3; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 35–74; Pet. 20, 33, 48, 64, 76). As demonstrated in the analysis below, at this stage of the proceeding, we need not construe these claim terms and phrases. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “For the purpose of institution and based on Petitioner’s citations to Kocherlakota, RFC 1122, and Dr. Olivier’s testimony (Ex. 1002), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to RFC 1122 when maintaining the TCP sessions [] disclosed by Kocherlakota.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 151); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized the benefits of Kocherlakota’ proxy servers exchanging TCP keep-alives with each other.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 151–152). Petitioner asserts that TCP keep-alives help detect when a client crashes or aborts a connection during a network failure and prevents server applications from indefinite hanging and unnecessary resource consumption. See id. at 52–53 (quoting Ex. 1006, 102; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner asserts that, in Kocherlakota’s system, following the establishment of sessions between proxy 17 and the client computer 11, proxy 19 and/or proxy 21, one of client computer 11, proxy 19, or proxy 21 could crash. See id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152; Pet. 22–28, 52). According to Petitioner, “without TCP keep-alives, client computer 11, proxy 19, or proxy 21 would unnecessarily expend resources keeping the TCP connection open.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner further contends that a person or ordinary skill in the art would have known that TCP keep-alives could also prevent periods of inactivity between client devices from causing the TCP connection between them to terminate. See id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 152). Petitioner acknowledges that RFC 1122 identifies potential disadvantages of TCP keep-alives, but Petitioner asserts that a person or ordinary skill in the art “would have recognized these disadvantages are outweighed” by the aforementioned benefits. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 153; Winner Int’l Royalty Co. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 & 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,190,622

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.