- Apple Inc. v. Masimo CorporationInstitutedPTAB · Jun 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00290 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6, 11–22, 27, 28, 32, 34, 36, 37, and 42–44 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”).8 Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo, 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like that in Sotera, i.e., a stipulation to “not pursue for the instituted claims, in [the Delaware Litigation], the same grounds as in the IPR2024-00290 petition or any grounds that could reasonably have been raised in that petition” (Ex. 1078, 1), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s stipulation “does not carry the benefits underlying the Director’s Guidance” because it was filed “only after the parties and the court conducted extensive and costly fact and expert discovery, and fully briefed and argued dispositive motions.” Paper 8, 2. We find this argument unpersuasive because the Director’s Guidance does not afford us discretion to discount a Sotera stipulation based on how far a parallel district court litigation has progressed when the stipulation was made. Director’s Memo, 7 (explaining, without qualification, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or PGR in view of” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we institute inter partes review of the ’223 patent on all challenges set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The main differences between the parties’ definitions of the POSITA appear to be Patent Owner’s inclusion of a number of alternative ways one could qualify as a POSITA, including a Master’s degree combined with less experience, although Petitioner also acknowledges that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. On the present record, we do not deem the differences in the proposals as material given their substantive overlap. In general, we find the additional specificity and alternatives in Patent Owner’s definition helpful. In addition, Patent Owner’s definition appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’223 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. 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)). We note that we would reach the same outcome in this Decision under either definition of the POSITA. If the parties continue to propose differing levels of ordinary skill in the art during trial, they should explain the differences and their relevance to the patentability issues in this case, and state whether any issue in the case turns on those differences.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action” under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“We have frequently stated that the words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” (citations omitted)). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need to be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 3 (citing Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Patent Owner asserts that we “should give the claims their ordinary and customary meaning” and that the claims “require no construction.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (noting that this is the same position it took in the Delaware Litigation). Patent Owner then asserts that Petitioner proposed constructions in the Delaware Litigation for several claim terms, but that Patent Owner asserts here, as it does in the Delaware Litigation, that those terms do not require construction. Id. at 15–16. We determine that no terms require express construction at this stage.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,190,223 - PTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“because they are premised on a misapplication of our precedent. Providing a document to the Office in an Information Disclosure Statement is sufficient to satisfy AB prong one as long as that “previously presented” art is “the same or substantially the same” as that presented in the Petition. See Advanced Bionics, 7–8 (holding that “[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant, such as on an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), in the prosecution history of the challenged patent”). As we have already found, there are no material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination under BD factor (a). Petitioner provides no authority that requires us to interpret “involved during examination” under BD factor (a) as “used in a rejection” or “mentioned by the examiner” (Pet. 60), and we are aware of none. Patent Owner’s position, in that regard, appears to conflate the first AB prong (whether the art previously was presented to the Office) with an aspect of the second AB prong (the extent to which the Examiner considered that art).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). The findings and conclusions set forth in this Decision are provided for the exclusive purpose of explaining our determination that Petitioner has met that standard on this record. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29). Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). A more specific definition is not necessary for purposes of deciding whether to institute review. To the extent a more specific definition is required, however, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed unchallenged definition because, on this record, it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that the claimed term “aryl” should be construed to mean “an aromatic ring system.” See Pet. 20–23. Patent Owner does not propose a different claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp., generally. After review of the preliminary record, we determine that no claim terms need to be construed for purposes of institution. 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.’”).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,041,087 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00404 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 3, 4, 7–10, 13, 14, 16–18, and 22 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“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 the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 7
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“1. “frame mode” Petitioner proposes we construe “frame mode” the same as we did in IPR2021-00822 as “having the keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and display components forming a non-zero angle.” Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction in its Preliminary Response. On the current record, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“2. “content mode” Petitioner proposes we construe “content mode” consistent with Patent Owner’s construction during the ’844 Reexam, where Patent Owner “argued for and received a construction of [‘Content Mode’] as meaning ‘displaying some information that represents a higher-level construct into which content is grouped.’” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1005, 6). Further, “[t]his recitation is distinct from merely displaying individual things (e.g., applications) that may be grouped into a content mode.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction in its Preliminary Response. On the current record, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,624,844 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00481 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 12, 14, or 16–18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had (i) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and two to three years of experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, or (ii) an advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the field. Ex. 1003, ¶102. A POSITA would have been familiar with the structural hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices as well as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating systems and their organization of content and functionality. Id. Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 18. For this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in both the prior art and the ’229 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Lane’s orientation information would generate information indicative of a current mode of operation as claim 18 requires. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not carried its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have, based on the teachings of Lane or other cited art, used an accelerometer that generates orientation information indicative of the current mode of operation. See Prelim. Resp. 35–42. Lane’s accelerometer provides information only on the “spatial orientation” of the first module (keyboard) or second module (screen). Ex. 1005, 5:23–6. “Spatial orientation,” as used in Lane, refers to the orientation of the first or second module relative to the earth’s gravity because Lane teaches that its accelerometer uses a “movable conductor” that “responds via gravitational forces” to reorientation. Id. Lane does not teach using the accelerometer to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other, and Petitioner does not suggest that Lane could be modified to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other. Rather, Petitioner argues that, for example, a determination that the keyboard is “facing upward but at a diagonal angle” (relative to the earth’s gravity) would be indicative of “easel mode.” Pet. 29.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,563,229 - Dell Technologies Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2024 · IPR2024-00480 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–11, 19–21, and 23–25 were obvious over the asserted grounds.
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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had (i) a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and two to three years of experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, or (ii) an advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the field. Ex. 1003, ¶102. A POSITA would have been familiar with the structural hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices as well as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating systems and their organization of content and functionality. Id. Pet. 9–10. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 17. For this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in both the prior art and the ’229 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Lane’s accelerometer provides information only on the “spatial orientation” of the first module (keyboard) or second module (screen). Ex. 1005, 5:23–6:6. “Spatial orientation,” as used in Lane, refers to the orientation of the first or second module relative to the earth’s gravity because Lane teaches that its accelerometer uses a “movable conductor” that “responds via gravitational forces” to reorientation. Id. at 5:25–31. Lane does not teach using an accelerometer to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other, and Petitioner does not suggest that Lane could be modified to determine the orientation of the first and second modules relative to each other. Rather, Petitioner argues that, for example, a determination that the keyboard is “facing upward but at a diagonal angle” (relative to the earth’s gravity) would be indicative of “easel mode.” Pet. 30. The spatial orientation of Lane’s keyboard or screen relative to the earth’s gravity, however, does not reliably9 indicate the device’s current display mode because, at any given moment, the Lane device could be held at different angles such that orientation relative to gravity does not correlate with the display mode. For example, Lane Figure 13 teaches that its keyboard could be at an angle (relative to earth’s gravity) while in laptop mode. Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Prelim. Resp. 41–42. We reproduce Lane Figure 13 as annotated by Patent Owner below.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,563,229 - Asustek Computer Inc. / Asus Global Pte. Ltd. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00532 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–10 and 23 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would replace Lane’s hinge with Misawa’s single-pivot hinge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“defines a single longitudinal axis running along an interface between the display component and the base” where “the display component and the base are rotatable about the single longitudinal axis.” Ex. 1001, 17:15–21 (the “single axis limitation”). In each of its seven grounds, Petitioner asserts that this claim limitation would have been obvious because “a POSA would have been motivated and able to adapt the portable computer 10 of Lane to use a single-pivot hinge like the hinge 20 taught in Misawa.” Pet. 29; see also id. at 32 (“In the portable computer 10 of Lane modified to implement a singlepivot hinge like the hinge 20 of Misawa, the hinge would define a ‘single longitudinal axis.’”). Our decision turns on whether Petitioner has carried its burden to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that the POSA would have been motivated to use a single-pivot hinge, like that disclosed in Misawa, in Lane’s computer, as proposed in the Petition. For the reasons discussed below, we find that Petitioner has not carried its burden. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Having determined that Petitioner’s proposed modification provides a modest benefit, we now consider whether such modification has any drawbacks. Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that, in an obviousness inquiry, “[t]he benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”) (citing Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Here, by Petitioner’s own admission, modifying Lane’s hinge in the manner Petitioner proposes comes at the expense of the hinge’s ability to rotate through a full 360°, which allows Lane’s computer to function as a tablet. Pet. 17 (explaining that Misawa’s single axis hinge “can open beyond the stated 300° (but less than 360°)”), 29 (explaining that a dual-pivot hinge is “unnecessary except to allow the display component to rotate far enough to fold flat against the bottom of the base to deploy the portable computer in tablet mode”); Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 110 (testimony of Dr. Wolfe echoing statement in the Petition that Misawa’s hinge cannot rotate through the full 360°), 114 (testimony of Dr. Wolf explaining that “the use of a dualpivot hinge would make it easier to design a portable computer having a display that can rotate far enough to fold flat against the bottom of the base to deploy the portable computer in a tablet mode”); Ex. 1017, 3:5–14 (Lane, teaching that allowing 360° of rotation allows a laptop computer to function as a “pen-based computing tablet”).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“motivated to replace Lane’s hinge with a single axis hinge because a single axis hinge is less expensive and more reliable than Lane’s biaxial decouplable hinge. Pet 29; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, 131 (testimony of Dr. Wolfe to the same effect). Patent Owner argues this proffered motivation is supported only by the conclusory testimony of Dr. Wolfe. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner also argues that neither Petitioner nor Dr. Wolfe attempts to explain or quantify just how much of a benefit using a simpler hinge provides. Id. We agree that Dr. Wolfe’s testimony on this point is somewhat conclusory. See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 113, 114, 131 (citing only limited supporting evidence). Nonetheless, we give Dr. Wolfe’s testimony some weight because it is consistent with the notion that a simpler device with fewer moving parts is likely to be somewhat less expensive and more reliable than a more complicated device. See Ex. 1016 ¶ 9 (prior art reference cited by Dr. Wolfe (Misawa), teaching that the mechanism of a hinge having a biaxial structure is “likely to be biaxial decouplable hinge with Misawa’s single axial hinge would provide a modest benefit.” slip op. at 18
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’688 Patent (“POSA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject, and two to three years of experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices. Alternatively, a POSA would have had an advanced degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable subject and one year of post-graduate research or work experience in the design and architecture of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices. A POSA would have been familiar with the structural hardware aspects of laptop computers and other portable electronic devices, as well as designs of user interfaces employed and displayed by computer operating POSA could have acquired similar skills and knowledge by other means. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 15). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s identification of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill is consistent with the subject matter of the ’688 patent and with the prior art of record, we apply it for purposes of this decision. 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).” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,289,688 - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27–29, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art and skilled-artisan knowledge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Our analysis begins with the claim language. The term “adhesion layer” appears in each of the ’806 patent’s independent claims, which include both method and device claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 13:44–63 (claim 1 directed to a “semiconductor device”); id. at 17:58–18:17 (claim 30 directed to a “method of manufacturing a semiconductor device”). Claim 1 recites “a first semiconductor chip having a first adhesion layer adhered to its back surface” and “a second semiconductor chip having a second adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 13:49–51, 13:54–56 (emphasis added). Claim 30 recites the steps of “forming a first insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a first wafer” and “forming a second insulating adhesion layer on a back surface of a second wafer.” Id. at 17:60–62, 18:3–5 (emphases added). In the absence of contrary evidence, we must assume that the term “adhesion layer” has the same meaning in all claims of the ’806 patent. In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the principle that the same phrase in different claims of the same patent should have the same meaning is a strong one, overcome only if ‘it is clear’ that the same phrase has different meanings in different claims,” quoting Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). The language of claim 30 and similarly worded claims of the ’806 patent suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer and need not be pre-formed, as argued by Patent Owner. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of claims 30 and 31 does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a pre-formed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 22–25 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Citing testimony from Dr. Suhling, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the priority date of the ’806 patent would have had i) a bachelor-level degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, or a related subject and five or more years of experience working in the field of semiconductor packaging; ii) a Master’s-level degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, or a related field, and at least 1-3 years of experience in the design/development of semiconductor packages; or iii) a Ph.D.- level degree in mechanical engineering, material science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least some experience in the area of semiconductor packaging. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). Petitioner further states that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2014 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Reasons to Combine Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ball’s teachings of stacking chips with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–29. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ball and Mostafazadeh for several reasons, including to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify the stacking process. Pet. 28–31. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Mostafazadeh with Ball because there would have been no reasonable expectation of success and the combination would not have resulted in a functioning semiconductor device. PO Resp. 39. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s combination of Ball and Mostafazadeh would fail for multiple reasons and that Mostafazadeh does not describe multi-chip stacked mounting. Id. at 39–52. Having considered the evidence and arguments, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive at the wafer stage and then dicing to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 28–31. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s combination. Ball teaches a stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond interconnections, where a lower chip is flip-chip connected to a substrate using metal bumps, and an upper chip is wire bond connected to the substrate. Ex. 1005, Abstract, 3:42–64, 4:58–59, 5:3–12, 5:18–20, 5:23– 27, Fig. 1. Ball teaches that the upper chip is attached to the lower chip in a back-to-back arrangement with a layer of adhesive applied over a back side of the lower chip. Id. Mostafazadeh teaches a method for applying integrated circuit dies to support surfaces. Ex. 1003, Abstract. In Mostafazadeh’s method, an adhesive coating is formed on a surface of a semiconductor wafer, the adhesive coating is dried, and the semiconductor wafer is diced to form integrated circuit dies, each having an adhesive layer on its mounting surface, i.e., its back surface. Id. at 3:5–11, 5:20–25, 7:9–11, 7:29–8:2, Fig. 2 (steps 104–110). A selected die is then attached to an associated support surface by placing the adhesive layer of the selected die in contact with the associated support surface. Id. at 3:11–13, 8:10–12, Fig. 2 (steps 112–118).” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that Petitioner meets its burden of proof for claim element [3d]. Our finding is supported by Figure 1 of Ball, which depicts a second chip mounted to a first chip in a back-to-back arrangement. Ex. 1002 ¶ 158; Ex. 1005, Fig. 1. More particularly, Ball’s Figure 1 shows that back side 32 of upper die 12 (the claimed “second semiconductor chip”) is mounted to back side 30 of lower die 14 (the claimed “first semiconductor chip”) by adhesion layer 28. Ex. 1005, 5:18–20. Relying on Dr. Suhling’s testimony, Petitioner shows persuasively that “a circuit is formed on the front surface 34 of upper die 12 . . . , as evidenced by bonding pads 36 and wires 38 connecting the upper die’s circuitry to the wiring layer on substrate 16.” Pet. 41; Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. We credit Dr. Suhling’s unrebutted testimony that, “[b]ecause the circuitry is on the front side of upper die 12, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would know that the back surface adhesive layer is ‘where a circuit is not formed.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 159. Patent Owner argues that, to meet claim elements [3b] and [3d], “a reference must show that an adhesion layer extends to cover the entire back surface of the second semiconductor chip where a circuit is not formed.” PO Resp. 30. We find no support in the claim language or other intrinsic evidence for Patent Owner’s argument. In our view, the phrase “back surface where a circuit is not formed” identifies the back side of the chip as opposed to the front side, where a circuit is formed. Ex. 1001, 14:26–27 (claim element [3d]). Our interpretation is supported by the claim language as a whole. Claim element [3b], for example, recites “a first semiconductor chip having a circuit forming on its front surface and an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface.” Id. at 14:17–19 (emphasis added). In this” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Julia Heaney · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12–19, 23–26, 30, and 32 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionGranted
“On the fully developed record, we find that Petitioner’s construction, “a layer that adheres,” is more strongly supported by the evidence than Patent Owner’s construction, “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner shows persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Mostafazadeh with Ball and Fogal. Pet. 32–33. The evidence discussed above concerning reasons to combine supports a reasonable expectation of success. We are also persuaded by Dr. Suhling’s testimony that the “combination of Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh would require no modification of the multichip modules in Ball and Fogal: rather Mostafazadeh merely explains in more detail methods known in the art for creating chips with adhesive surfaces.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 239; see also id. ¶¶ 62– 69 (describing prior art methods for applying adhesive to the backside of a wafer). For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh.” slip op. at 46
- ExcludeOther
“We do not discuss or cite any of these exhibits in this Decision, or rely on any of them in reaching our determination that all of the challenged claims are unpatentable. Because their presence in the record would not affect our analysis in this Decision, we dismiss as moot Petitioner’s motion with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 72
Patent outcomesUS RE38,806 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR - Micron Technology, Inc. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00073 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under §103: the Board found the asserted combinations taught the limitations, with motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“The claim language, “forming” an “adhesion layer on a back surface,” suggests strongly that an “adhesion layer” may be formed in situ on the back surface of a wafer. The testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Elenius, supports this interpretation. See Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 43, 50 (testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would recognize that there are multiple methods of forming an ‘adhesion layer’ on the back surface of the semiconductor chip” and that “[p]astes and other adhesives, adhesive agents, adhesive layers or other material that are dispensed onto a substrate or chip back are formed into a layer over time as they harden through curing” (emphasis added)). Thus, the language of the claims of the ʼ879 patent does not support Patent Owner’s construction that the “adhesion layer” must be a preformed layer that is adhered. Cf. PO Resp. 21–23 (arguing for that construction).” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Nevertheless, based on our review of the ’879 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’879 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Mostafazadeh, could overflow.” PO Resp. 41, 42 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 121). According to Patent Owner, the downward pressure during mounting “could cause adhesive to squeeze out.” Id. at 41. We find that Patent Owner’s argument and the corresponding testimony of Mr. Elenius are speculative and do not outweigh Petitioner’s evidence of obviousness. The overflow issue was recognized and addressed by Mostafazadeh. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Mostafazadeh provides explicitly that its adhesive layer “covers an entire mounting surface 190 of the selected integrated circuit dies 182 and does not extend beyond a boundary of the mounting surface 190.” Ex. 1003, 10:6–9 (emphasis added). Additionally, Mostafazadeh teaches that when “the adhesive layer is rolled on, it is exactly the same size as the mounting surface and is quite even. Thus, when the die is attached to its supporting surface the adhesive does not extend beyond the mounting surface of the die.” Id. at 9:15–18. Further, Mostafazadeh teaches that its process avoids the adhesive jutting around the edges of the die. Id. at 2:26–28. These teachings support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully applying Mostafazadeh’s die attachment method to Ball’s multichip device while avoiding adhesive overflow. Next, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination would fail” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasons to combine Ball’s stacked multichip module using flip-chip and wire bond connections with Mostafazadeh’s process for applying adhesive to create individual chips with adhesive backsides. Pet. 25–28. In particular, Petitioner shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered Mostafazadeh’s teaching of applying the adhesive to a wafer surface and then subsequently dicing the wafer in order to provide a more efficient manufacturing process for multichip modules and to simplify Ball’s process of stacking chips. Id.; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (stating that the “mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement” suggests obviousness). The teachings of both Ball and Mostafazadeh support Petitioner’s” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 6,352,879 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,352,879 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,462,942
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.