- Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00201 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable; the cited combinations did not teach or suggest a stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’698 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“through 14, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently7 that the map shown Figure 13b is stationary, as recited in claim 1. Petitioner does not rely upon Roussos as teaching the “stationary map” recited in claim 1 or assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Kim in light of Roussos to satisfy this claim limitation. See, e.g., Pet. 27–30 (relying upon Kim); see also id. at 26 (discussing the proposed combination as including Roussos’s coordinate system). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that the combination of Kim and Roussos teaches or suggests a stationary map as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,836,698 - Facebook, Inc. v. Thaddeus GabaraInstitution deniedPTAB · May 25, 2021 · IPR2021-00200 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on all challenged claims because the petition did not show that Kim, alone or in combination, disclosed or suggested the required stationary map.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“For the following reasons, we find Patent Owner’s assertions have merit because Petitioner has not carried its burden of showing Kim discloses or suggests a background image of a stationary map, which is a necessary limitation in each of the challenged independent claims. Because this deficiency is dispositive and leads us to the conclusion that the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’545 patent, our discussion below focuses on Petitioner’s contentions regarding Kim’s disclosure of a stationary map.” slip op. at 12
- Other 314aNot reached
“V. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner contends that we should exercise our discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Prelim. Resp. 3–12. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s argument. See Paper 12 (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request to File Preliminary Replies to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses), 3 (noting that Petitioner requested authorization to file a preliminary reply to respond to Patent Owner’s argument regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a)). Because we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that at least one claim of the ’545 patent is unpatentable, we need not reach the issue of discretionary denial pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’545 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningNot reached
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). At this stage of the proceeding, the parties agree that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 15; Prelim. Resp. 28. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,620,545 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01613 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–3 and 5–15 unpatentable over Milewski, or claims 1–3, 7–9, and 12 obvious over Milewski and Heijden.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 3–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Mr. Andrews’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related technical field, and at least 2–3 years of experience in the fields of messaging systems, and wireless communication devices, or an equivalent advanced education in the field of messaging systems, including wireless communication devices. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“analysis. Petitioner maps the action message shown in Milewski’s Figure 4 to the recited “formatted message” (see, e.g., Pet. 32 (“Figure 4 shows an exemplary screen display of an action message (the ‘formatted message’) presented to the recipient at the receiver communication station.”)), while also mapping Figure 4 to the recited “response message” (see, e.g., id. at 37 (identifying Figure 4 as the “completed reply form (response message)”)). Milewski describes Figure 4 as both the action message and reply form. Compare Ex. 1007, 7:38–39 (“FIG. 4 is a screen of the action message 400 displayed by the controller at the recipient’s station.” (emphasis added)), with id. at 9:11–15 (“In an operation 803, the controller renders the action message body in a reply form shown in FIG. 4 to the recipient using standard World Wide Web protocols and processes (HyperText Transaction Protocols-HTTP; HyperText Mark Up Language-HTML).” (emphasis added)). Milewski appears to explain the basis for its terminology by stating that “[t]hroughout the description, structured responses may also be classified as an ‘action message’ as more descriptive of the reply sought by a sender.” See id. at 5:56–59. The problem Patent Owner identifies with Petitioner’s analysis, however, is that Petitioner fails to explain where Milewski indicates copying information from the action message to the reply form when the action message and reply form appear to be the same. In support of its argument regarding copying, Petitioner cites to column 7, lines 44 through 52, of Milewski. That section states the following: Upon marking the selected response, the recipient completes the response to the action message. In the present instance, the recipient has marked the “other” response and provides text in a field 408 as a response to the text in field 402. A field 410 is available for additional comments which the sender authorized to be entered by checking the field 212 in template 200. In this case, the recipient has chosen not to provide any additional comments. Ex. 1007, 7:44–52. We find that there is nothing in this section that expressly supports Petitioner’s contention that information is copied from the action message to the reply form, especially in light of Milewski’s indication that the action message is the reply form. Furthermore, Petitioner fails to explain sufficiently why a skilled artisan would view this passage as describing the alleged copying.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 13, 2021 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Coffee, alone or with Heijden, rendered any challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’308 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“The only dispute pertaining to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding is whether the phrase “a process for creating said response message,” recited in claim 1, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Petitioner contends that the phrase should be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation, whereas Patent Owner contends that it should not. Compare Pet. 2–7 (advocating for a means-plus-function construction), with Prelim. Resp. 9–11 (advocating for an ordinary and customary meaning). At this stage of the proceeding, the dispute between the parties regarding the construction of this claim phrase does not impact our Decision. Accordingly, we need not construe expressly any claim terms for the purpose of this Decision.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art” for purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. At this stage of the proceeding, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“analysis. Even if we assume that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious “field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message,”7 Petitioner has not shown that it is “based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received.” Rather, whatever information Coffee may copy appears to be the same from each formatted message (as shown in Petitioner’s comparison of 7 For purposes of this Decision, we need not decide whether Coffee in fact discloses or renders obvious this recitation of claim 1. Coffee’s Tables 58 and 63) and not based on which pre-defined formatted message was received.8 Additionally, Petitioner’s alternative arguments as to whether Coffee discloses (explicitly or inherently) and/or renders obvious field-mapping information that is stored on the MDT do not address the specific deficiency identified above and do not provide an alternative basis for finding that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious field-mapping information for indicating information to be copied from said formatted message to a response message based on which one of said pre-defined formatted messages was received. See Pet. 33–35 (discussing explicit, inherent, and obvious alternatives). Accordingly, based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee discloses and/or renders obvious limitation 1d.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,925,308 - PTAB · Oct 30, 2020 · IPR2020-00909 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because claims 15–17 were statutorily disclaimed, and denied Garmin’s motion to join IPR2020-00782.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§] 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) shall be recorded in the Office, and is “considered as part of the original patent.” See 35 U.S.C. § 253(a).” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“As discussed above, because Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(a) disclaiming all the challenged claims of the ’958 patent, no inter partes review is instituted in this proceeding. Moreover, for the same reason, the Board has denied institution in IPR2020-00782. Accordingly, there is no ongoing inter partes review in IPR2020-00782 to which the instant Petitioner could be joined. Therefore, pursuant to § 315(c), we deny the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 6,976,958 - Fitbit, Inc. v. Philips North America LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 30, 2020 · IPR2020-00782 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Philips had recorded a statutory disclaimer of all challenged claims 15–17.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. [§] 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent. No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” (Emphasis added.) A disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) shall be recorded in the Office, and is “considered as part of the original patent.” See 35 U.S.C. § 253(a).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,976,958 - SHDS, Inc. / Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Truinject Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 14, 2020 · IPR2020-00042 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving the claims obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’836 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Mukherjee, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, robotics engineering, mechatronics, or a similar field, or, alternatively, may have had a lesser degree in one of those fields accompanied by practical experience in designing medical training or similar systems. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). Petitioner further submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an in-depth working knowledge of machine vision, three-dimensional tracking systems, microprocessors, signal processing, sensors, computer programming, or a combination thereof. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 27). In addition, Petitioner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have experience in designing and producing realistic anatomical models or lifelike mannequins and would have a strong working knowledge of mannequin design, computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD and CAM), materials selection, human anatomy, and related special effects, and may have collaborated with others of skill in the art, such that the individual or the team collectively would have had experience and/or knowledge of medical simulators. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner does not dispute this contention at this stage of the proceeding, nor does Patent Owner offer its own definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We find, based on our review of the record before us, that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and, for the purposes of this Decision only, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Goldstein’s blinded breast model 6 by combining it with the larger torso body form of Lacey. First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Mukherjee adequately explains why the proposed modification would provide a simulation of human tissues for training that is more realistic than Goldstein’s training apparatus. Dr. Mukherjee’s testimony merely repeats the Petition’s assertion and does not offer objective evidence or analysis to support the assertion. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 75. For this reason, we do not credit the testimony of Dr. Mukherjee on this point. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Goldstein’s blinded breast model 6 by combining it with the larger torso body form of Lacey. First, neither the Petition nor Dr. Mukherjee adequately explains why the proposed modification would provide a simulation of human tissues for training that is more realistic than Goldstein’s training apparatus. Dr. Mukherjee’s testimony merely repeats the Petition’s assertion and does not offer objective evidence or analysis to support the assertion. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 75. For this reason, we do not credit the testimony of Dr. Mukherjee on this point. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert testimony that lacks specificity or detail). Second, we do not agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered combining Goldstein’s model with a torso body form useful or desirable given the nature of Goldstein’s training process. That is, Goldstein’s training technique relies on the trainee palpating the breast model to locate the target lesion and to guide the aspiration needle to the target. Ex. 1004, 3:53–59. Thus, “[t]he lifelike characteristics of the breast model provide tactile training of these events and allow the trainee to accumulate sensory knowledge of successful technique.” Id. at 3:60–62 (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to explain adequately why including a human torso form would have made palpating the breast model more realistic or otherwise enhanced this technique in any way. Furthermore, Goldstein states that a benefit of the disclosed breast models is “their small size and simplicity which encourage their availability and use.” Id. at 5:13–15. Petitioner’s proposed modification, however, would result in a larger, more expensive training apparatus that would defeat Goldstein’s stated benefit. As such, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Goldstein’s training apparatus in the manner proposed by Petitioner. For the reasons discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over the combination of Goldstein and Lacey. 5.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,792,836 - Tesla, Inc. v. Nikola CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 27, 2020 · IPR2019-01646 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Tesla did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the arguments presented in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–26 of the ’084 patent as unpatentable under the grounds presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby do not institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’084 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the invention of the ’084 patent would have had the following education and experience, a “Bachelor of Science degree in an industrial design field and two years of experience in automotive design.” Pet. 13 (citing, Ex. 1002 ¶ 17). Patent Owner does not dispute this level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 17. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“electric drive train.” See Pet. 8–13. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner asserts that no claim construction is necessary, but if construction of 9 The Partner of Choice, MAN SE 2012 Annual Report (Exhibit 1013) (“MAN Annual Report”). 10 Josef Loczi, Ergonomics Program at Freightliner, Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., Journal of Commercial Vehicles, Section 2 – Volume 109, SAE 2000, pp. 462‒69 (Exhibit 1014) (“Freightliner”). “adjacent to” is necessary, Petitioner’s construction should not be used because it is too narrow. Prelim. Resp. 8–17. We determine that for the purposes of this Decision, it is unnecessary to expressly construe any claim term. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Only terms in controversy must be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs in the context of an inter partes review). slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“[t]he following annotated Figure 1 of Modec shows that “at least a portion of the door [yellow]” is “positioned behind the seat [green] and at least a portion of the seat [green] is disposed to be forward of a line defining the rearmost portion of the wheel well [blue line extended from rearmost edge].” Ex. 1002 ¶ 82. Mr. Baker’s testimony simply repeats the conclusions articulated in the Petition with no further explanation or support. Compare id. with Pet. 39. “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Thus, neither Petitioner nor its declarant supports its conclusion with sufficient rationale, explanation, or evidence. Consequently, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that a person of skill in the art would have understood Modec’s Figure 1 to disclose “at least a portion of the seat is disposed to be forward of a line defining the rearmost portion of the front wheel well” recited in claim 1. In reviewing the record, we are mindful of the principle that patent drawings are not working drawings and we must not disregard things clearly shown in patent drawings. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1972). However, our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against overreliance on drawings that are neither expressly to scale nor linked to quantitative values in the specification.” Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, even with Petitioner’s annotations, it is not clear whether Modec’s Figure 1 shows a portion of the green seat in front of Petitioner’s blue line. Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported arguments, which would require us to speculate on the contents of a patent drawing.” slip op. at 19
Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,077,084 - Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2019-00838 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1, 13–18, 22, and 33–38 under § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art had been presented to the Office.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“In evaluating whether to deny institution on the basis of § 325(d) because the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office, the Board considers the following non-exclusive factors: (1) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (2) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (3) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (4) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (5) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (6) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - BMW Of North America, LLC v. Carrum Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2019-00928 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, relying on Winner’s existing methods for detecting turns.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“6. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner. As Winner discloses methods for identifying when a vehicle has entered a curve (measuring transverse acceleration and using the forward facing radar), it is not evident why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Fukada to obtain additional Petitioner is relying on alleged AAPA7 to provide reasoning in support of the proposed combination, we note that identification of a problem “is not an admission that this problem was known or appreciated by others.” Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Innogenics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In view of our analysis discussed below, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim term of the ’416 patent, because construing these terms is not necessary for us to assess the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See 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.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the ’416 patent was filed would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related engineering discipline and two to three years of industry experience in the field of automotive control systems or automotive engineering, or equivalent experience, education, or both.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner asserts further that “[t]he person would also have knowledge or familiarity with in-vehicle computing.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Pet. 9). Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we 6 We note that at this time no objective evidence of nonobviousness has been presented by Patent Owner. consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the ’416 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,925,416
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.