- PTAB · Jan 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01203 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenge.
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. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–10, 12–14, and 17–19 of the ’989 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“in situations where a district court trial date is 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 the district court has actually set a trial date 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,14 as there is no basis for Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“numerical solubility limit into the claims, noting that the ’989 patent expressly defines “non-ionic side groups capable of imparting solubility in water” as simply “side groups which are not charged and allow the resulting polymer to be soluble in water or aqueous solution with no visible particulates.” Prelim. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:9–13). Petitioner notes that this definition contains no numerical limit, and that it is followed by a statement that in some embodiments, the R group is capable of imparting solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL. Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 54:13–16). Petitioner contends that reading a limitation from “some embodiments” into the claims would be “one of the cardinal sins of patent law.” Id. (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320; Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Brent, 48 F.4th 1365, 1375–76 (Fed. Cir. 2022)). Petitioner also directs our attention to related patents that expressly claim a solubility in excess of 10 mg/mL, arguing that when Patent Owner sought to claim such polymers, it knew how to do so. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 218:11–12; Ex. 1006, 239:43–45, 252:51–52, 254:39–40, 262:56–57, 269:31–35).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“proposed claim construction on solubility above, which we declined to do on the present record. For this reason, we find them unpersuasive. In addition, we note that Xue expressly discloses that its glycopolymers utilizing PEG-tethered spacers (Polymers B and C) “are highly water-soluble due to their long, flexible, hydrophilic spacers.” Ex. 1010, Abstract, 2289–90. Petitioner sufficiently sets forth why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the PEG side chains of Xue to impart solubility in water, which is all we have construed the claims to require.” slip op. at 35
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,458,989 - Alcon Inc. / Alcon Vision, LLC et al. v. Amo Development, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00843 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“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. 28; PO Resp. 8. The evidence of record also demonstrates that few individuals actually had such experience. Rather, teams of individuals with different expertise and various academic degrees would work together to 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). These 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” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“[C]lear reliance on the preamble during prosecution to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art transforms the preamble into a claim limitation because such reliance indicates use of the preamble to define, in part, the claimed invention.” Catalina Mkt’g Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808–09 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, and as discussed in further detail below, the Examiner expressly allowed the claims, in part, due to an Examiner’s Amendment changing “scanning system” to “cataract surgery scanning system.” Ex. 1006, 13, 15, 18. This reliance on the preamble to help define the claimed invention transforms this portion of the preamble into a limitation. See Catalina Mkt’g, 289 F.3d. at 808. slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“(4) Analysis As discussed above, the intrinsic record of the ’023 patent, that is, the claims, written description, and prosecution history, suggests that a “cataract surgery scanning system” is one that is capable of performing at least one incision related to cataract surgery. This may include cataract and relaxation incisions in the cornea, limbus, or sclera, or incisions in the lens or lens capsule. Accordingly, we construe the claim term “cataract surgery scanning system” to require that the system be designed to, or capable of, performing at least one step of cataract surgery, such as creating an incision in the cornea or other exterior tissues to allow access for surgical instruments, correcting for astigmatism, creating an opening in the anterior lens capsule, or fragmenting the lens. See Pet. 20 (Petitioner describing the steps of a “typical cataract surgery”).” slip op. at 20
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, after reviewing the claims, written description, and prosecution history, we construed the claim phrase “cataract incision therein that provides access to an eye chamber of the patient’s eye, the incision . . . only partially extending through the target tissue” to require “a partially penetrating cataract incision that, when completed by the surgeon or another individual, allows access for lens removal instrumentation.” Dec. 13–14. Patent Owner agrees with this construction (PO Resp. 13) and Petitioner does not expressly dispute the construction in its Reply. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Institution Decision, we adopt this construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,233,023 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,233,023 - PTAB · Sep 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00673 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 under § 103 based on WO684 and NO366, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“prior situations, how the New Hampshire District Court would rule should a stay be requested in the New Hampshire litigation. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative) (“A judge determines whether to grant a stay based on the facts of each specific case as presented in the briefs by the parties. We decline to infer, based on actions taken in different cases with different facts, how the District Court would rule should a stay be requested by the parties in the parallel case here.”). We view this factor as neutral because neither of the parties in the New Hampshire litigation has requested a stay thus far. See id. at 12 (determining that Factor 1 is neutral when neither party has requested a stay and the issue has not been ruled on by the district court).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We agree with Patent Owner that both WO684 and NO366 were at least considered by the Examiner, even if the Examiner never discussed the references or relied on them in any manner. See Ex. 1001, code (56) (listing both WO684 and NO366 among the references cited). Under these circumstances, we find the first part of the Advanced Bionics satisfied because the prior art before the Examiner and the prior art relied on in the Petition include the same prior art references.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelOther
“person having ordinary skill in the art “has a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering or Robotics and at least three to four years of experience working as an engineer in the field of AS/RS [Automated Storage and Retrieval Systems].” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner argues in the alternative that one of ordinary skill in the art “has at least a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, and at least four to five years of experience working as an engineer in the field of AS/RS.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). Patent Owner argues that “the level of ordinary skill in the art is ‘at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, and at least two to three years’ experience working in the field of the design of robotic vehicles for material handling system[s].” Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 50). Patent Owner contends that the parties agreed that this level of skill applies to WO684 in a related ITC proceeding, and should be adopted here. Id. at 29–30 (citing Ex. 2007, 19–20). We note that the parties’ respective proposals overlap considerably, with Petitioner’s alternative proposal nearly identical to Patent Owner’s proposal. We need not resolve which proposal most closely aligns with the level of ordinary skill in the art here, however, because even if we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal we would come to the same ultimate conclusion that Petitioner satisfies its burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not propose any constructions for any claim terms, and “Patent Owner also believes no claim term requires construction and submits that the Petition is defective under any reasonable claim construction.” Prelim. Resp. 30. Based on our review of the current record, we need not formally construe any claim terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,961,051 - TCT Mobile (US), Inc. / TCT Mobile (US) Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00599 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Morita and the knowledge of a skilled artisan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Baker testifies that “[b]ecause the SE1 signal differentiates between PS/2 and USB interfaces, the SE1 signal in Casebolt . . . identifies a power source type.” Ex. 1026 ¶ 16. Dr. Baker relies on the undisputed facts that “the PS/2 interface provides a maximum current of 275 mA” and “according to the USB specification, a high-power function can draw up to 500 mA, while a low-power function may draw only up to 100mA.” Id. As discussed above, although Dr. Fernald testifies that Casebolt uses SE1 to distinguish between PS/2 and USB and that PS/2 and USB have different current limits, he offers no explanation for his conclusion that Casebolt does not suggest use of SE1 to identify a power source type. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 67. We credit Dr. Baker’s testimony over that of Dr. Fernald on this point because it is consistent with the evidence that USB and PS/2 have different current limits. Consequently, we find that Casebolt shows using an SE1 signal to identify a power source type was known to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 35
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The level of ordinary skill in the art is “a prism or lens” through which we view the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person presumed to have known the relevant art at the time of the invention. In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, we may consider certain factors, 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.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeOther
“III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibit 2030. Paper 28, 1. Petitioner contends Patent Owner filed Exhibit 2030 with its Sur-reply in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), which prohibits the filing of new evidence other than deposition transcripts with the Sur-reply. Id. at 1–2. We do not rely on Exhibit 2030 in this Decision. Consequently, we dismiss Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 43
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Patent Owner also submits “the preambles for claims 1 and 8 are limiting because they provide antecedent basis to ‘the mobile device’ in the rest of the claims and further limit the claimed ‘mobile device’ to one ‘configurable for use in a wireless telecommunications network.’” 7 Dr. Baker applies this construction in his Reply Declaration. See, e.g., Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 11–12. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:49–50, 12:30–32). We need not reach the question of whether the preamble is limiting because, as explained below in our analysis of claim 1, there is no dispute that Morita discloses the subject matter of the preambles of claims 1 and 8. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1015 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 over Morita and/or the” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 7,834,586 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,834,586 - PTAB · Jun 9, 2022 · IPR2022-00100 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 8–10 and 15–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Typically, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent,” but “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” CTPG 59. We agree that the claims challenged by these two petitions differ significantly. For example, as Petitioner notes:” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed combinations of prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable as obvious if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). We resolve the question of obviousness based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 13, 17. Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] . . . would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or the equivalent, and two or more years of experience with LED devices and/or related circuit design, or a related field. . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 12. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In inter partes review, we construe claims using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). The parties do not propose any constructions. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 12. Based on our review of the preliminary record, we determine that no terms require construction at this stage. See 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.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,750,583 - PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00052 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all asserted grounds for claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show them unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . 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, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the remaining challenged claims— claims 2–5, 7, 11–13, 21, and 23 of the ’251 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to these claims on all grounds asserted in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, 1355 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Typically, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent,” but “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” CTPG 59. For example, more than one petition may be necessary “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id. Given the priority date dispute addressed only in the -00051 Petition, and in light of Patent Owner’s decision not to challenge Petitioner’s filing of parallel petitions, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny either petition. See CTPG 61 (“The Board will consider the parties’ submissions in determining whether to exercise its discretion to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same claim construction standard 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 that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 6–7; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“In view of the foregoing, and after reviewing the parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Birrell and Schultz teach or suggest “at least one LED circuit having a plurality of LEDs . . . wherein the at least one LED circuit is mounted on a reflective substrate,” as recited in claim 1 of the ’251 patent. Petitioner also provides a sufficient rationale, supported by record evidence, explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Birrell and Schultz. b) Reasonable Expectation of Success Patent Owner contends the Petition does not support institution because incorporating Schultz’s flexible, multilayer optical film in Birrell would present substantial challenges “for reconciling the build characteristics of the multi-layer rigid frame construction of Birrell with the flexible construction of Schultz.” Prelim. Resp. 22. And, given the differences in construction between the two lighting devices, Patent Owner contends the combination of Schultz’s reflective surface materials with Birrell’s circuit board 58 is not a “predictable use of known lighting design techniques and components according to their established functions,” as asserted by Petitioner. Id. at 21–22. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, Petitioner does not contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Schultz’s specific reflective material in Birrell. Rather, Petitioner argues that the use of reflective substrates to provide mechanical support for an array of LEDs was well known in the art and, given Schultz’s disclosure of the benefits of such a reflective coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to apply a reflective coating in Birrell. Pet. 13–16. In addition, Dr. Baker, citing to multiple disclosures in the prior art, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success in implementing a reflective substrate in Birrell. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–85. Patent Owner’s bare attorney argument is not sufficient to call this testimony into question at this stage of the proceeding. c) Conclusion with Respect to Claim 1 For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner demonstrates sufficiently” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - PTAB · Jun 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00051 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1 and 6 over all asserted grounds because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Birrell and Schultz and over Piepgras.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“At bottom,” the two-part framework utilized for 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) “reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Id. at 9. The art in the -01369 IPR has not yet been fully considered. There has been no definitive determination in that proceeding as to the scope of the prior art nor any definitive determination as to whether the submitted evidence is sufficient to show that any claims of the ’251 patent would have been obvious. As such, there is no reference point to determine whether the Office erred; there has simply been no definitive determination to analyze or reconsider. Accordingly, the framework described in Advanced Bionics is not yet applicable and does not support discretionary denial.6 Thus, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) on these facts. slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Decided for petitioner
“6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party asserts that any claim terms of the ’251 patent require construction. Pet. 21–22; Prelim. Resp. 13. And, upon review of the 6 When different petitioners challenge the same patent, discretionary denial may be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), upon evaluation of the non-exhaustive factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19, at 15–16 (Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). See Valve Corp. v. Elecs. Scripting Prods., Inc., IPR2019- 00062, Paper 11, at 2, 9 (April 2, 2019) (applying the General Plastic factors to a second petition filed by a different party). Application of the General Plastic factors, however, requires analysis of, among other things, any relationship between the different petitioners and the timing of the second petition with respect to Patent Owner’s preliminary response and the Board’s institution decision in the first proceeding. Id. at 9, 12. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence demonstrating that these factors counsel in favor of discretionary denial in this case, and Petitioner presents evidence that they do not. Pet. 81–84 (Petitioner asserting that it has no “significant relationship” with the petitioner in the -01369 IPR and that no preliminary response had been filed in the -01369 IPR when the Petition was filed). Accordingly, we do not consider discretionary denial under § 314(a). parties’ arguments and supporting evidence, we find that no terms require construction for purposes of this 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 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to apply a reflective coating, such as that disclosed in Shultz, to Birrell’s circuit board, and would have sought to do so because such coatings were well known in the art and it was understood that a reflective coating would improve the illumination provided by an LED lighting system. Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1002 ¶ 105. Petitioner’s arguments and rationale for the proposed combination are clear and supported by evidence of record. Pet. 29–30 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 47–49; Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1018, 6:6–18, 6:48–7:34; Ex. 1022, Abstract, ¶¶ 18, 34, 81). Accordingly, Petitioner sufficiently explains for purposes of institution why one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to combine the disclosures of Birrell and Schultz to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,492,251 - PTAB · May 5, 2022 · IPR2022-00063 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–34 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on obviousness over Ellsberry and Jeddeloh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“another patent asserted in the Related Case was filed within a week of the Preliminary Response. Id. We decline to attempt to predict how the District Court would proceed should a stay be requested by either of the parties. Accordingly, we find that this factor neither favors nor weighs against discretionary denial of inter partes review. C. Factor 2 — Proximity of Court’s Trial Date Patent Owner admits that “[t]he district of Delaware has not yet set a trial date.” Id. Accordingly, this factor weighs against exercising our discretion to deny inter partes review.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Given the facts above, because Averbuj was not presented in combination with the other references asserted here and is only used in two of the four grounds, the combination of references asserted in the Petition do not qualify as art that was “previously presented” to the Office. Thus, we find that the combination of references asserted in the Petition, were not previously presented to the Office. Additionally, Patent Owner does not assert or explain sufficiently that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and/or Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Prelim. Resp. 41–43. On this record, we are not persuaded that Ellsberry, Jeddeloh, and Lee are cumulative of any reference cited during prosecution of the ’523 patent. Accordingly, the first condition of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework is not satisfied, and we need not consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Conclusion After evaluating the Becton, Dickinson factors within the Advanced” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or in a related field and at least one year of work experience relating to memory systems, and would be familiar with the design of memory devices, memory modules, and BIST.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization or offer its own. Accordingly, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, which we determine is consistent with the ’523 patent written description and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner offers constructions of several terms which are not disputed by Patent Owner. Pet. 13–15. Nevertheless, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of the terms of the claims at this juncture. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,217,523 - Maxlite, Inc. v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2022 · IPR2020-00208 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 7, and 12–18 are unpatentable as anticipated by Duan under § 102(a)(1).
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2-4 years of academic or industry experience in lighting design, including knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs. A person of ordinary skill in the art with a higher level of education may have fewer years of academic or industry experience, or vice versa. Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 10). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s articulation of the level of skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“embodiments that operate with a low frequency driving signal in a double-ended configuration, Patent Owner did not recite “low frequency” or “double-ended” in its claims and instead chose the broader term “first driving mode.” See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“We have cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.”). The fact that a limitation in the specification may define over the prior art does not justify importing that limitation into the claims unless a term is expressly defined such that the patentee becomes his own lexicographer or there is an express disavowal of claim scope. See GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1308–09 (Fed. Cir. 2014). There is no evidence of an express disavowal here. As to lexicography, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that the Specification defines the phrase “first driving mode.” Patent Owner relies on the mere fact that the specification describes an embodiment with a first driving mode that has a low frequency driving signal and is in a “double-ended” configuration, but this is not sufficient to define the term. The specification does not require that a low frequency driving signal must necessarily be used. In fact the specification, although not entirely clear, suggests that the driving signal may be from a high frequency ballast. Ex. 1001, 51:8–14. Thus, the fact that the patent here discloses a low frequency driving signal does not mean that all the claims are directed to such a driving signal. See E-Pass Tech., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Indeed, dependent claim 15 recites “the first driving mode is performed when the external driving signal is a relatively low frequency or voltage signal,” while the independent claims were directed to a more general driving signal. The doctrine of claim differentiation suggests that the independent claims here should not include explicit limitations of a dependent claim. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the independent claim.”); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 7
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not shown sufficiently that the Chinese priority patent applications it relies on—the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application—provide written description support for the limitation of “a mode determination circuit, configured to generate a first determined result signal based on the external driving signal” and “a mode switching circuit, coupled to the filter circuit and the driving circuit, configured to determine whether to perform a first driving mode or a second driving mode based on the first determined result signal,” recited in claim 1. PO Resp. 31–34, 60–67. Specifically, Patent Owner relies on structures in the ’636 Chinese Application and the ’586 Application that are not sufficiently similar to structures in the ’826 patent i.e., DR Circuit 140, excluding diodes D5 and D6, as shown in Figs. 24i-j and 29b. Id. at 27 (citing Ex. 2001, 23–24, 29, and 33, Fig. 24i–j and 29b).” slip op. at 11
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“For the reasons above, Patent Owner has not established that claim 1 of the ’826 patent is entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application (i.e., June 10, 2015) or the ’586 Application (i.e., March 26, 2015). Because the remaining asserted claims are dependent claims, Patent Owner has also not established that claims 7 and 12–18 of the ’826 patent are entitled to the effective filing date of the ’636 Chinese Application or the ’586 Application. The application that led to the ’826 patent was filed on March 25, 2016. The ’826 patent claims it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 15/055,630 (“the ’630 Application”), filed on February 28, 2016. So, even if the challenged claims were entitled to the earlier February 28, 2016 filing date, Duan issued on July 1, 2015, and is, thus, prior art to the challenged claims of the ’826 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,807,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,807,826 - Vudu, LLC v. Ideahub, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2022 · IPR2020-01688 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21, and 23 are unpatentable over DIS 23009-1; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the relevant field as of the earliest priority date would have had at least the equivalent of a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of media streaming over the Internet. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, nor 6 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. does it present its own definition. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it is consistent with the specification of the ’830 patent and the cited references.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes that we construe “adaptation set,” “SegmentBase,” and “SegmentTemplate.” Pet. 19–21. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its briefing. We need not construe any claim term to resolve any issues before us, and therefore, do not expressly define any claim term in our Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 11
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
“not describe additional configuration information nor user characteristic information. Instead, it describes “an additional configuration to select a representation based on a user characteristics and terminal characteristics.” Ex. 2004 ¶ 232. It is unclear from Patent Owner’s argument whether Patent Owner intends for the claimed “user characteristic information” to include or refer to additional configuration information, accessibility features of a representation, or both. Reply Rev. Opp. 1 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253). In any event, merely because paragraph 253 uses the term “[h]ereinafter” before it discloses “two simple attributes [] for the above-described purpose”––and not even in close proximity to the “user characteristics” and “additional configuration” in paragraph 232––is not sufficient to provide support for “the user characteristic information includ[ing] the usedWith attribute and the equivalentTo attribute,” as recited 8 Ex. 2005 is Application No. 16/168,933 (“the ’933 application”). in limitations [38.6], [40.6], and [46.6]. None of the cited portions (i.e., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 232, 234, 253, 255–257, Table 13; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 254–256, Table 13) indicates a sufficient connection or relationship, or the claimed inclusive relationship, between user characteristic information and the usedWith and equivalentTo attributes. Contra Reply Opp. Rev. MTA 1 (Patent Owner arguing that the cited disclosures “clearly show this relationship between the claimed attributes and user characteristic information”). For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claims 38, 40, and 46 do not find sufficient written description support in the ’644 application nor in the ’933 application, whether considered individually or collectively, and thus, these claims contain new matter.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“rationale for combining DIS 23009-1 with M20060, Petitioner persuasively contends that: A POSA would have been motivated to add the additional “metadata” described in M20060 to the MPDs described in the DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 references in order to enable the client to choose the most suitable version of media content among alternative versions of media content. For example, M20060 describes that the additional metadata (e.g., the extended accessibility element and the usedWith, equivalentTo, bitDepth, minBitDepth, and maxBitDepth attributes) helps “both users and clients to select appropriate representations” by, for example, “1) supporting accessibility, 2) describing relationships of representations, and 3) describing media’s bit depth.” Moreover, a POSA would have had an expectation of success in modifying the MPDs in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1 to include the additional metadata described below because it simply would have been a matter of adding additional metadata to the MPD XML schemas described in DIS 23001-6 or DIS 23009-1. Id. (citing Ex. 1094 ¶ 33; Ex. 1097 § 1, 1). Dr. Bestavros persuasively explains that “M20060 expressly references the DIS 23001-6 reference and proposes specific modifications to the MPEG DASH metadata included in the MPD XML schema.” Ex. 1094 ¶ 34 (citing Ex. 1097 § 1, 1 (introduction of M20060); Ex. 1097, 7 (references cited by M20060)).” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 10,270,830 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,270,830
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.