- LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00319 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 5, 15, and 25 were not shown unpatentable because Barsoum supports their priority date, and neither Barsoum nor ATSC327 qualifies as prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why claim 5 requires this type of optimization, or why this would be required in order for Barsoum to provide written description support for the claim. Claim 5 does not expressly require optimization of phase considerations and Petitioner does not argue for a claim construction that would include such a requirement.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(3) Conclusion – Written Description In view of the above, we find that either disclosure in Barsoum identified by Patent Owner satisfies the written description requirement. 2. 35 U.S.C. § 103 As noted previously, Petitioner argues that dependent claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327. Pet. 67–79. Having determined the Barsoum provides written description support for claims 5, 15, and 25, Barsoum cannot be prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as asserted by Petitioner. Pet. 2; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (requiring that “the claimed invention was patented . . . before the effective filing date of the claimed invention). Furthermore, having determined that the ’700 patent is entitled to an effective filing date of Barsoum ’777, which is June 5, 2008, the asserted March 2019 date of ATSC327 does not qualify it as prior art to the ’700 patent. Thus, the Petition does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 5, 15, and 25 are obvious over the combination of Barsoum and ATSC327.” slip op. at 22
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“1 Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23, though challenged by Petitioner, were disclaimed by Patent Owner after trial was instituted. Ex. 2024. 2 The Petitioner Sur-reply was authorized in view of our authorization for Patent Owner to file declarant testimony with the Patent Owner Sur-reply.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’700 patent and prior art of record. We also find that Dr. Caire’s statement of a “Ph.D.,” “and possibly some years of work after Ph.D.” is consistent with Petitioner’s statement that the level of skill includes “[s]uperior education” to “compensate for a deficiency in work experience.” The complexity of the evidence of record emphasizes the importance of “at least two years of experience . . . including the use of constellations in transmitting signals between devices” or “[s]uperior education” in the same area. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill as discussed above.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,693,700 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,693,700 - PTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00063 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Prikowitsch or Sar-Shalom.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“16–23; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in 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”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 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 in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR” (Ex. 1055, 2), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv. As to Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner should not be able to file a stipulation after the Preliminary Response (Prelim. Resp. 22–23), we determine that Petitioner’s filing of its Sotera stipulation at the time it did is proper. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential) (holding the Board may only consider stipulations offered before a decision on institution).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’227 patent is unpatentable over Prikowitsch.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In summary, we determine that adoption of either party’s proposed construction does not provide a meaningful difference at this time; both appear to cover the same idea. Indeed, given that the claims already state that the call completion application detects an incomplete call, receives a call completion action, and triggers execution of the call completion action, we see no reason to construe “call completion application” to require anything beyond what is already in the claims. On this record, we see no support in the claims or specification to hold that a “call completion application” can be read as operating without reliance on a network in some way.2 Instead, after the call completion application becomes aware of an incomplete call, the application receives a choice from a user and triggers execution of that choice, and in accordance with the ’227 patent 2 To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction is seeking to preclude a network in the performance of the call completion application, then we would not agree with that construction. The call completion application is always dependent on the infrastructure of a communication network; as should be clear from our analysis above, the ’227 patent is focused on independence from the call completion services provided by the called party’s network. Notwithstanding the choice of call completion action being independent of the call completion services provided by the called party’s network, the call completion action still must rely on the network to provide the infrastructure to carry out certain actions. specification, it is that choice that is not premised on a limitation imposed by the called party’s network. Ex. 1001, 1:54–62 (“a system that complete[s] an incomplete call . . . independent of a preconfigured call completion service on the called party’s network”) (emphasis added), 2:39–43 (“the system . . . enables transmission of a voice message by a calling party to a called party when a network component or a called party device is not configured to offer a call completion option to the calling party to leave a voice message”). We do not explicitly provide a claim construction of any claim limitation in this Decision at this time because the issue of whether Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood can be resolved without explicitly construing the claim. 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)). However, our analysis places the parties on notice of the potential scope of the claims.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art: would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and Internet-related communications technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill at this time. Prelim. Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the level of disclosure provided in the ’227 patent and the prior art cited.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,227 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00422 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–5, and 7–16 as anticipated by Foss; claims 2, 6, and 17–20 as obvious over Foss and Hirka.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s skill definition is not “well-grounded in the facts,” but this assertion is conclusory and unpersuasive. See id. at 11. We discuss this assertion again below in the context of Patent Owner’s merits arguments. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’301 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“possession when the same dictionary proposes other definitions, such as “[a]ssociated with.” See PO Resp. 6–7. Nor does Patent Owner point to any disclosure in the ’301 patent specification that supports its more restrictive construction. When discussing “account information” in connection with an “account,” the specification merely describes “account information for the account.” Ex. 1002, 1:54–55, 10:49–50 (emphasis added). The phrase “account information of the separate account” does not occur in the specification, and neither party addresses any relevant prosecution history. There is no basis in the intrinsic record, then, for reading a restrictive interpretation of this phrase. Patent Owner overlooks that where the specification does not use a term restrictively, “the broader dictionary definition . . . is preferable.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d, 1303, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (“[J]udges are free to . . . rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.” (internal quotation omitted)). As noted above, the parties point to no intrinsic evidence, whether in the specification or prosecution history, that informs the meaning of the term “of.” And the definition “associated with” in Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary is a broader definition than the definition “possessing.” See Ex. 2001, 2. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “account information of the separate account” in claims 1 and 7 at least encompasses “account information associated with the separate account.”” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We disagree with Patent Owner that this limitation is not inherently disclosed by Foss based on the possibility of Foss’s system sending debit account information instead of overdraft account information. That is because “account information of the separate account” encompasses “account information associated with the separate account,” under the correct claim construction. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 387 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 17). As noted above, Mr. Zatkovich testifies that “the account information request would necessarily include account information associated with the overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 386 (emphasis changed). Foss’s linkage between debit and overdraft accounts means that Foss’s debit account information would necessarily be information associated with the overdraft account. See id. ¶ 387; Ex. 1008 ¶ 17. Thus, under the proper construction of the word “of,” Patent Owner’s assertion that Foss’s system could have sent a debit card number, rather than an overdraft account number, effectively proves Petitioner’s inherency argument. In other words, Foss’s system necessarily must have sent either debit account information or overdraft account information as part of its authorization request. Otherwise, Foss’s system would not have been able to determine which overdraft account to authorize. Foss therefore inherently teaches “sending, using the computer-based authorization system, an account information request that includes account information of the separate account.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that dependent claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka. Pet. 68–84. Petitioner provides a detailed analysis explaining where the combination of Foss and Hirka discloses the limitations in claims 2, 6, and 17–20 and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Foss and Hirka. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions except to raise the same argument it made for claim 1. PO Resp. 18–19. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and supporting evidence and find them persuasive. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, and 17–20 would have been obvious over the combination of Foss and Hirka.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,905,301 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,905,301 - Askeladden L.L.C. v. Liberty Peak Ventures LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 29, 2024 · IPR2023-00421 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Gopinathan and Hirka; the Board did not reach anticipation over Gopinathan.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on these and other disclosures in Hirka, Mr. Zatkovich testifies, and we agree, that Hirka discloses the debit card aspect of the authentication limitation. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188–189.7 For example, Mr. Zatkovich states that Hirka “demonstrate[s] that a debit card used in the transaction . . . is associated with both a demand deposit account (e.g., a ‘cash account’) and an overdraft account.” Id. ¶ 188. Mr. Zatkovich’s opinions are well-supported by record evidence, including the citations to Hirka we discuss above. Patent Owner does not address these disclosures in Hirka and does not rebut Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony with expert testimony of its own. See PO Resp. 15–16. Patent Owner’s assertion that “the combination suggests only authenticating a transaction against an available credit limit” entirely overlooks Hirka’s disclosure regarding debit cards and demand deposit 6 No line numbers are provided on Hirka’s first page. 7 Mr. Zatkovich also relies on the teachings of Hirka ’404 (Ex. 1007), which was cited by the Examiner during prosecution. E.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 170, 188. Although Hirka ’404 further supports Mr. Zatkovich’s findings, we view Mr. Zatkovich’s testimony sufficiently supported by the combined teachings of Gopinathan and Hirka. accounts. See id. at 16. Patent Owner’s argument therefore fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive arguments and supporting evidence.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“a POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, data science, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with payment processing systems, credit card and debit card payment transactions, and industry practices and standards for processing purchase transactions and authenticating participants. Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–161). Patent Owner does not submit a contrary skill definition. See PO Resp. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is generally consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’100 patent and prior art of record. We note, however, that the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of experience indefinitely with no upper bound. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill with the exception of the language “at least.”” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner proposes constructions for the “authenticating” step of claim 1 as well as for the terms “demand deposit account” and “overdraft account.” PO Resp. 6–7. Petitioner does not dispute these constructions, and Patent Owner does not appear to rely on them in its arguments. See Reply; PO Resp. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (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 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner, as supported by the testimony of Mr. Zatkovich, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan and Hirka at least “because doing so would have protected cardholders and card issuing systems from fraud associated with debit cards with overdraft protection.” Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 191). In other words, in the combination, Hirka’s debit cards with overdraft protection would benefit from Gopinathan’s fraud protection disclosure. See id. And conversely, Gopinathan’s system would benefit from Hirka’s overdraft protection. See id. Patent Owner does not squarely address Petitioner’s rationales to combine. In asserting that “the teachings of Hirka add nothing to the teachings already present in Gopinathan,” Patent Owner overlooks that Hirka would provide the benefit of overdraft protection to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. See PO Resp. 15; Reply 17 (arguing that “a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Gopinathan with Hirka to protect cardholders from fraud ‘associated with debit cards’ and ‘overdraft protection’”); Ex. 1003 ¶ 191. We further agree with Petitioner that Hirka would have provided the benefit of debit cards to Gopinathan’s fraud detection system. Reply 19 (“[I]t would have been obvious (and a POSITA would have been motivated to) to modify Gopinathan with the ‘debit card’ system as taught in Hirka in order to expand the reach and applicability of the fraud detection system taught.” (citing Ex. 1014 ¶¶ 654–662)). And vice versa, Gopinathan would have provided the benefit of fraud protection to Hirka’s debit card and overdraft accounts. Reply 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171); Pet. 24.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,837,100 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,837,100 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–13 and 16 on all petitioned grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Fells.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (vacating a Board decision denying institution where the examiner considered references but never provided any discussion, analysis, or other findings, and the petition provided a sufficient argument on the merits, which the examiner misapprehended or overlooked). Here, in evaluating Becton, Dickinson factor (c), we determine that the Examiner’s reasoning with respect to Fells and Cook is not well developed and neither reference was the basis for a rejection. We also determine, for reasons we discuss more fully below, that InductEV has shown that the Examiner materially erred by overlooking at least the teachings of Fell as applied to claim 1 (Becton, Dickinson factor (e)), and that the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including testimony by Dr. Allen, that warrant reconsideration of Fells (Becton, Dickinson factor (f)). See infra Section IV.C. Thus, we decline to deny institution discretionarily under § 325(d).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“9. Conclusion as to claim 1. For the above reasons, we determine that InductEV has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Fells discloses or teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the features described in Fells in the manner recited in claim 1. We therefore determine that InductEV is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Fells.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party argues that we should construe any particular claim terms. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–63); Prelim. Resp. 5–6. We agree that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). We discuss the claim terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationInstitutedPTAB · May 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). Applying that standard, we institute an inter partes review of all the challenged claims of the ’654 patent for the reasons explained below. This is a preliminary decision, and we will base our final written decision on the full trial record.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“First, although InductEV disagrees that the word antenna would exclude coils found within a transformer-like structure, InductEV does not appear to dispute WiTricity’s proposed IEEE definition of antenna as “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See Prelim. Reply 2–3. We preliminary adopt that construction. But we agree with InductEV that nothing in this construction would exclude a coil found within a transformerlike structure, so long as it either transmits or receives radio waves. We also note that, although WiTricity relies on the generation of near-field flux lines into free space as a way to distinguish an antenna from a transformer, WiTricity does not point to any testimonial or other evidence that a transformer coil does not generate near-field flux lines into free space. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 8–16; Ex. 2001, 20–37. Second, we agree with InductEV that the preliminary evidence does not suggest (and WiTricity does not explicitly argue) that the terms transmitting antenna or receiving antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 2. The ’654 patent does refer to a “coupling-mode region” consisting of the area around antennas 114 and 118 of Figure 1 in which “near-field coupling may occur.” Ex. 1001, 2:38–40; see supra Section II.A. But this is the region in which “efficient energy transfer occurs by coupling a large portion of the energy in the near-field of the transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna rather than propagating most of the energy in an electromagnetic wave to the far field”—not a defining characteristic of either the transmitting or receiving antenna. See Ex. 1001, 2:31–38. Thus, for this decision, we preliminarily adopt InductEV’s proposed construction of transmitting antenna as “an antenna that transmits energy” and the proposed construction of receiving antenna as “an antenna that receives energy.” Prelim. Reply 1. This appears to be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the terms and their usage in the ’654 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:26–40. As this is a preliminary construction solely for this decision, the parties may continue to offer evidence and arguments as to these or other claim terms at trial. We do not need to construe any of the other terms explicitly for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, if WiTricity is correct that alignment based on the degree of coupling is not explicitly applicable to the “parked” embodiment, the preliminary evidence suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to substitute such alignment for alignment based on the output of the sensors that Ross discloses, such as optical sensors, and that this would have predictably led to aligning the two coils regardless of whether the vehicle is parked temporarily on a roadway or parked in a loading/unloading zone. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 246–248 (opining that a person of ordinary skill would have understood that one may obtain the “optimum lateral position” of the vehicle coil by sensing the degree of coupling “[i]nstead of” using sensors (quoting Ex. 1007, 13:21))); KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 (“[W]hen a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[I]f there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.” (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). We also find persuasive, on the present record, InductEV’s argument that claim 13 does not require control based on the degree of inductive coupling while the receiving antenna is being guided into the recited “first alignment position.” See Prelim. Reply 5. Whereas limitation 13[b] requires such control after the receiving antenna is already in the “first alignment position” (e.g., during fine alignment while Ross’s vehicle is parked in the loading/unloading zone), there is no such requirement in limitation 13[a] while the receiving antenna is being moved to the “first alignment position” (e.g., while Ross’s vehicle leaves the electrified roadway and parks in the loading/unloading zone).” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,466,654 - PTAB · Apr 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00064 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“The Director’s Memo provides that “[c]onsistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc.,[7] the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Director’s Memo 3. With our authorization, Petitioner has filed a stipulation which stipulates that “[i]f the PTAB institutes the pending IPR in IPR2024-00064 . . ., then Samsung will not pursue as to the challenged claims any ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR in the . . . district court Case 2:22-cv-00462-JRG-RSP.” Ex. 1082, 1.8 We determine that the language of this stipulation sufficiently comports with the language of the Director’s Memo, consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc. See Director’s Memo 3. We accordingly decline to” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and touch interface technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner construes the terms “interface regions,” “gesture,” “interface definition module,” “detection module,” and “action management module.” Pet. 8–10. Patent Owner agrees with some of these constructions and asserts that resolution of others are unnecessary at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 4–6. Because none of these terms are in dispute, none of these terms or any other terms require construction at this stage. 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))). The parties are free to present any proposed construction of any claim term in subsequent briefing.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“At this stage, we disagree with Patent Owner. As we understand Lee’041, the defined interface regions do not remain static, as Patent Owner argues. Rather, we agree with Petitioner at this stage that Slide-to-Lock feature 18 dynamically appears on the display “where a part of region 16 was previously.” Pet. 27. As can be seen from Figures 2A and 2B of Lee’041, reproduced above, Hold to Talk region 16 covers a bottom portion of the screen (shown with Petitioner’s pink annotation). When Hold to Talk region 16 in Figure 2A is pressed and held by the user’s finger, Slide-to- Lock feature 18 appears (in Figure 2B) in a part of the same area of the screen as Hold to Talk 16 region was displayed. See Ex. 1014, 3:33–36; Figs. 2A–2B. Comparing these two figures, the region 16 for Hold to Talk in Figure 2A shrinks in size in Figure 2B to accommodate Slide-to-Lock feature 18. Thus, Patent Owner’s assertion that “the function associated with each of the defined regions remains static” overlooks that the function of part of the Hold to Talk region 16 is changed to be a Slide-to-Lock feature 18. See Prelim. Resp. 8.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,552,030 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Medivis’s rehearing request, leaving in place the decision that claims 1–6 and 11–20 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references’ public accessibility was not established.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a sur-reply. Thus, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to present new arguments or evidence or merely to disagree with the panel’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented in turn.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“accessibility, except the references Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves. This is insufficient and tantamount to submitting no proof of public accessibility. To find public accessibility, we must determine that a “document has been disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art[,] exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.” SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Internet Sec. Sys., Inc., 511 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2008), quoted in Dec. 26–27. Petitioner has insufficiently explained, by a preponderance of the evidence, how Chen, 3D Visualization, and 3D Slicer themselves answer the question of whether they have been disseminated or otherwise made available to those of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we did not overlook or misapprehend any evidence of public accessibility on pages 29–30 of the Petition.” slip op. at 4
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedOther
“declaration by reference, we exercised our discretion to address a portion of it in our Decision. Dec. 30–31. We did so because we noted that his testimony was “particularly deficient for [the 3D Slicer] reference.” Id. at 30. Petitioner now asserts that in doing so, we “misapprehended or overlooked the logic that application documentation” like 3D Slicer’s “must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application.” Req. 7. But Petitioner’s assertion that “application documentation must be accessible to potential application users because it serves to help users use the application” is a new argument, not raised in the Petition or Reply. Even if Petitioner’s assertion were correct, it falls far short of the evidence required to prove that 3D Slicer was actually disseminated to interested members of the public. See, e.g., Weber, 92 F.4th at 1068. Thus, Petitioner’s argument fails to persuade us that we overlooked or misapprehended anything.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,004,271 - PTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00056 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 on all four asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Taken holistically, we find Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial unavailing. Although there is no stay in the District Court, this factor weighs only marginally in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. The trial court date is set some months earlier than our projected statutory deadline, but the trial date may change, and the parties provide no statistics on median time to trial in the relevant district. Thus, the trial date weighs only slightly in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution. See Director’s Memo (“[T]he proximity to trial should not alone outweigh all of those other factors.”). Further, although there is an overlap in claims asserted in the district court and before the Board, Patent Owner acknowledges that this proceeding “would not cover any of the references that Petitioner[] raised in the District Court Litigation,” so the lack of overlap in issues weighs against exercising discretion. See Prelim. Resp. 19. We also agree with Petitioner that there has been little activity in the District Court litigation, such as the issuance of any substantive orders. See Pet. 74; Fintiv, Paper 11 at 9–10. In sum, although there is no stay and an early trial date, we find that the uncertainty of that trial date, the current lack of progress of the District Court litigation, and the lack of overlapping issues weigh against exercising our discretion. See Director’s Memo 2 (“[T]he precedential import of Fintiv is limited to facts of that case.”). We therefore need not reach Petitioner’s assertion of compelling merits. See Pet. 74; CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 6 (Vidal Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“The Board should first assess Fintiv factors 1–5; if that analysis supports discretionary denial, the Board should engage the compelling merits question.”).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’949 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- 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 at the relevant time (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two-three years of experience with multimedia and Internet-related communications technologies, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–30). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art at this stage. Prelim. Resp. 3. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’949 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 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the terms “multimodal message,” “service information,” “client application,” and “pointer.” Pet. 8–13. Patent Owner does not dispute any of these constructions. Prelim. Resp. 3–4. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner appears to treat the preamble of claim 1 as limiting and agrees that it is limiting. Id. at 4. Because none of these terms are in dispute, none of these terms require construction at this stage, and we need not determine whether the preamble of claim 1 is limiting. 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))). Petitioner also asserts that the term “interactive multimodal message” has its plain meaning, but Petitioner does not explain what that plain meaning is. Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner that this term should have its plain meaning but also provides a construction for “interactive.” Prelim. Resp. 3; see also id. at 7. We address the meaning of this term in the context of the parties’ merits arguments below.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,929,949 - Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00045 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable over Jones and/or Doo; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the obviousness grounds lacked adequate motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“2. “augmentation tag” Petitioner proposes the following construction for “augmentation tag”” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Accordingly, Petitioner persuades us that Jones discloses limitation” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasoning why the POSITA would be motivated to combine, ‘what was known in the art at the relevant time,’ whatever that may be.” PO Resp. 42. We agree. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination.” Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Rather, “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the” slip op. at 53
Patent outcomesUS 10,945,807 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,945,807
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.