• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2022-01587 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–8 and 11–18 on all eight asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Consistent with these proposals, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal for purposes of this Decision, in addition to Patent Owner’s contention that a master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of relevant experience also suffice. Based on the preliminary record, this level of ordinary skill appears to be consistent with the description of the relevant field and background art in the ’282 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:32–2:24.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Mohapatra’s testimony evidences skilled artisans would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Nagayama and Crawford. Dr. Mohapatra testifies that Nagayama and Crawford describe improved content filtering systems for data transferred to an open network, and their overlapping objectives and technologies could complement one another to improve content filtering. Ex. 1002 ¶ 95. Dr. Mohapatra also testifies that Nagayama’s system “could be improved by including content-based filtering on a network service into a single policy” to expand the scope of the filtering rules to include parameters in a single filter rule. Id. ¶ 96. Dr. Mohapatra also testifies that Nagayama and Crawford filter network traffic for network services. Id. ¶¶ 119–125. Dr. Mohapatra testifies that skilled artisans know how to filter data at gateways for network services, watermarks, and other data using port numbers and packets. Id. ¶¶ 49, 54–61, 64–66, 70–73, 120. Petitioner cites Dr. Mohapatra’s testimony to support its contentions that skilled artisans could have combined Nagayama and Crawford with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 94–97), 35–37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119–122), 8–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 47–73). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Black, testifies a skilled artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Nagayama’s network security device (filtering means 60) to filter network traffic for network services and apply filter rules that are active for a network service due to the complexity of firewall systems and myriad design challenges. Ex. 2001 ¶ 45. We do not find this testimony persuasive at least because claims 1 and 11 do not claim a firewall of any particular configuration, much less one with any of the complex features and functions that Dr. Black discusses in his testimony.” slip op. at 26

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

    “Petitioner contends that no claim construction is needed except for the term “watermark.” Pet. 16. Petitioner asserts, “a watermark must include “(1) information indicative of one or more of a source, origin, owner, author of a document or a file, or a company identifier, and (2) a sensitivity level.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction but instead contends that the term need not be construed because it does not impact any pending dispute between the parties. See Prelim. Resp. 13. We do not rely on Petitioner’s proposed definition of watermark because an interpretation of this limitation is not necessary for resolving the parties’ dispute in this proceeding.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,237,282
• Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 26, 2023 · IPR2021-01541 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over the cited combinations of Dowling, Mueller, Okuno, Nortrup, Yan, and Martin.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “After considering the evidence and arguments of the parties, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1– 4, 6–8, 11–13, 15–17, and 19 are unpatentable.” 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 (“POSITA”) . . . would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or similar technical field, with two years of relevant experience in the field of design and/or development of LEDs and circuits in the context of lighting control systems. An increase in experience could compensate for less education. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 14. We are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’001 patent and prior art of record. We therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Under the correct claim construction, Dowling discloses this limitation because Dowling discloses several examples of two-way switch 190 turning on or off LED circuits, independent of other LED circuits. For example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that Dowling’s color wash mode (selected by switch 190) discloses this limitation by referring to LEDs that “cycle . . . through the full color spectrum,” turning different colored LEDs on or off. Ex. 1033 ¶ 26 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 44, 103 (“If two LEDs were used . . . with circuitry to turn each color on or off, four colors could be produced.”) (emphasis added)). As another example, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can be used to select a “static color mode to produce, for example, the color red, then only the red LED will be turned on and the remaining LEDs will be turned off.” Id. ¶ 28 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 103). Finally, Dr. Neikirk persuasively testifies that switch 190 can select a strobing mode to cause LEDs to “alternate[] green and red,” which a POSITA would have understood to cause “at least one color LED circuit to be turned on or off independent of other LED circuits.” Id. ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not rebut these assertions of Dr. Neikirk. See Sur- reply 7–10. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has established that Dowling discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 26

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

    “We begin our analysis with the claim language. Claim 1 requires a switch to “independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” There is no express requirement in the claim that any switching occur independently “of other switches.” In effect, Patent Owner appears to imply that “independently” modifies only the word “switch.” Yet the plain reading of this phrase is that the word “independently” modifies the entire phrase that follows—“switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit.” As such, the plain language of the claim encompasses switching one of the LED circuits on or off independently of another LED circuit. In other words, the switch can turn on or off either LED circuit by itself, without affecting the other LED circuit. Patent Owner even appears to have had the same understanding pre-institution, arguing that one of Dowling’s modes “is simultaneously controlling all the LEDs, not independently switching one LED circuit on or off.” Prelim. Resp. 19. The specification does not inform the meaning of this limitation because it does not include the word “independently”—this term only appears in the claims. And Patent Owner points us to no discussion of independent switching in the specification by another name. At most, Patent Owner refers to two separate claims and a few specification references that possibly mention two separate switches. Sur-reply 3–4. But Patent Owner’s references to claims 11 and 15 are unavailing, as even if claims 11 and 15 mention different switches, Patent Owner does not sufficiently explain how this compels the meaning it ascribes to “independently switch.” This is true even though claim 11 itself recites a similar “independently switch” limitation. Further, the specification’s mere mention of different switches is also insufficient to draw any conclusion about whether those switches are independently switched from one another. We therefore find no disavowal, lexicography, or any context that would counsel departing from the plain and ordinary meaning of this limitation. As such, we construe “a switch . . . configured to at least one of independently switch on or off at least one of the first LED circuit or the at least one additional LED circuit” in claims 1, 6, and 11 to encompass a switch that switches an LED circuit on or off independently of another LED circuit.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,537,001 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,537,001
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Constellation Designs, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Apr 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01482 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Sommer taught the optimized-for-capacity limitation in independent claims 1 and 17, which also appears in the challenged dependent claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner’s argument is conclusory and does not sufficiently explain how Sommer teaches a “constellation optimized for capacity.” Patent Owner argues that because Petitioner does not construe “optimized,” the Petition provides no “metric by which the Board could determine whether Sommer discloses optimized.” Prelim. Resp. 37; see also id. at 37–38. We agree that a construction of “optimized” could have provided a metric for us to better evaluate Petitioner’s argument. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (the Petition should “provide a claim construction for the challenged claims.”). Without a claim construction and with insufficient explanation for how Sommer teaches that its constellation is “optimized for capacity,” the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood of showing that Sommer teaches the last limitation of independent claims 1 and 17. For example, although the Petition argues that Sommer’s constellations provide a capacity gain versus other methods, it is unclear whether Petitioner is arguing that this improvement means the constellation is optimized. If this were Petitioner’s position, the Petition does not explain why one of skill in the art would have understood an improvement that results from using Sommer’s constellations to be the same as optimizing the constellation as required by the claim.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Though Patent Owner makes arguments with reference to “a person of ordinary skill,” Patent Owner does not directly address or contest Petitioner’s level of skill. See e.g., Prelim. Resp. 37. We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’761 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 neededNot reached

    “Though Patent Owner’s evidence establishes that the term “optimized” is common and understood in the art, we determine that it is not necessary for us to construe “optimized” for our decision. We further determine that no other terms need to be construed. 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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Further, the cited testimony of Petitioner’s declarant for this limitation is identical to the Petition. Compare Pet. 54–55, with Ex. 1003 ¶ 129. Because the declarant testimony, like the Petition, is conclusory in nature with respect to how Sommer teaches optimization, it is entitled to little weight. Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, 15 (August 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding declaration is entitled to little weight when it contains an exact restatement of the petition’s conclusory arguments without any additional supporting evidence or reasoning).” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,842,761
• Facebook, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 22, 2023 · IPR2021-01461 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–11, 13–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103; PARC’s contingent motion to amend is denied because the pending substitute claims lack written-description support and are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on Mr. Schmandt’s testimony, Facebook argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of context-based computer systems, such as the collection, processing and use of context data in computer systems capable of adapting their operation based on context.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 15– 18). Facebook also contends that a person might qualify as an ordinarily skilled artisan “with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa.” Id. For this proceeding, PARC does not dispute this proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 16–17. Because Facebook’s uncontroverted articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’439 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:4–33 (“Background” section of the ’439 patent, describing the field and related art as relating to the use of using contextual data in computer systems).” slip op. at 10

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “construction of the term “facts and assertions” or the identification of facts and assertions within Cheng. See Paper 23, 1–2. Having reviewed the arguments, we do not consider them untimely. As we discuss in more detail below, Facebook relied on the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “facts and assertions” in its Petition, and then when PARC raised an alternative construction of the term in its Response, Facebook responded to those arguments. See infra Sections IV.B.2, IV.C.4(a). Facebook’s Reply only responded to arguments raised in PARC’s Response and was not untimely. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (permitting a petitioner to respond to arguments in a patent owner response); Anacor Pharm., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he petitioner in an inter partes review proceeding may introduce new evidence after the petition stage if the evidence is a legitimate reply to evidence introduced by the patent owner, or if it is used ‘to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.’” (quoting Genzyme Therapeutic Prod. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Moreover, PARC had a meaningful opportunity to address the arguments in its Sur-reply and in oral argument. See PO Sur-reply 7–12; Tr. 22–34. Thus, we do not find Facebook’s contested arguments untimely and we have considered them in our decision.7” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Facebook. As we discuss below, Cheng teaches a graph-based model that stores data in memory on a per-user basis. See infra Section IV.C.4(a); Ex. 1003, Fig. 7. Also, as PARC acknowledges, Facebook’s expert Mr. Schmandt stated in deposition that he assumed, for his analysis, that the term “context graph” requires a “graph-based model.” PO Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 2019, 36:16–37:8); see also PO Sur-reply 4. Thus, because Facebook’s analysis of Cheng is consistent with the assumption that “context graph” has the meaning PARC proposes in this proceeding, we do not need to construe the term “context graph” to reach our decision. 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’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with the parties that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term “fact” to include an indication of truth, whereas an assertion need not include such an indication. However, we disagree with PARC that a person of ordinary skill would have considered the term “assertion” to exclude facts. Indeed, in its ordinary and customary meaning, a fact stored in a context graph would be a type of assertion. We appreciate PARC’s argument that when two different terms appear in a claim, they presumably refer to different things. See PO Resp. 27 (citing CAE Screenplates, 224 F.3d at 1317). And we agree that the two terms have different meanings in claim 1 based on the plain meaning of each term. However, the specification refers to “stor[ing] facts and assertions about a user’s behavior and interests,” which simply appears to identify a single category of data for storage, i.e., “facts and assertions,” without specifying a clear difference between “facts” and “assertions.” See Ex. 1001, 3:21–22. In any event, we find no evidence of record suggesting that either (1) the (citing Pet. Reply 8–9). Because Facebook appears to have been relying on what it regarded as the plain meaning of the terms without proposing an explicit construction, we do not interpret Facebook’s argument in the Petition (Pet. 20–21) to imply that there is no distinction between a fact and an assertion, and do not find Mr. Schmandt’s later testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 2019, 41:3–11) inconsistent with arguments made in the Petition. ordinary and customary meaning of the term “assertion” excludes facts, or (2) that the ’439 patent uses these terms in a way that departs from their ordinary and customary meaning. That claim 1 requires the presence of both “facts” and “assertions” does not render the two terms superfluous, as this would exclude prior art in which a context graph includes only assertions but not facts. On the other hand, a disclosure of a collection of facts would meet the term “facts and assertions” because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded any subset of the facts to also be assertions.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 9,208,439 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,208,439
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · IPR2021-01345 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 9–11, 13, 17, 18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hack and Garcia, Hack, Garcia, and Cordelli, or Hack and Porter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would mean someone who, at the time of the invention in February 2004, 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 related LED circuit design. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–48). Petitioner contends that there is little difference between these definitions and that Patent Owner does not tie any of its arguments to the minor differences. Reply 1–2. We agree. However, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill because we are persuaded that it is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’252 patent and prior art of record, except that we delete the phrase “or more” to avoid including ambiguity in the definition of the level of skill. The outcome of this decision would not have changed had we adopted Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Further, as we will discuss in detail below, the prior art upon which 7 The parties do not address the prosecution history. Petitioner relies explicitly discloses a substrate that is flexible enough to be folded. See, e.g., Pet. 40; Ex. 1005 ¶ 76 (“[T]he display 106 could be thin and flexible enough to . . . fold into a housing 102[.]”). Thus, apart from explaining the errors in Patent Owner’s proposed construction, we determine that it is unnecessary for us to further analyze the proper scope of this term. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Because the intrinsic record7 does not assist us with interpreting the term “folded,” we turn to the extrinsic evidence, including Patent Owner’s proffered dictionary definitions and expert testimony. As mentioned above, Patent Owner supplied two dictionary definitions for “fold.” See Exs. 2006, 2007. But these definitions are from non-technical sources and are non-contemporaneous with the ’252 patent’s priority date, and are thus of limited relevance to our analysis. Reply 14 n.7. As for expert testimony, Patent Owner’s expert submits that “[a] POSITA would understand that folding a substrate requires bending the substrate so that one part of the substrate is in full contact with another part of the substrate.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 81. However, Patent Owner’s expert provides no evidence or explanation for this conclusory assertion, so we give it little weight. See id.; PO Resp. 18–19; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that Garbuzov discloses stacked LEDs, with a coating on one of those LEDs, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, which we discuss in detail below. To briefly summarize, first, we agree with Petitioner (and Patent Owner does not dispute) that Figure 39 (above) of the ’252 patent depicts an OLED. Second, we agree that each of the sets of layers Petitioner identifies in Garbuzov as an OLED has a similar structure as the OLED in Figure 39 of the ’252 patent, and is therefore an OLED. See, e.g., Ex. 1089, 48:3–6. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the phosphor layer 114 is applied to one of Garbuzov’s OLEDs within the stacked set of OLEDs, as shown in Garbuzov Figure 2, and therefore, that Garbuzov discloses coating an LED with a phosphor. Finally, we agree with Petitioner that phosphor layer 114 produces a change in color because Garbuzov describes phosphor layer 114 as “red downconversion phosphor layer 114.” See Ex. 1016, 3:32–33.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,492,252 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,492,252
• Eve Energy Co., Ltd. v. Varta Microbattery GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01484 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that the asserted combinations taught or suggested the claimed force-fitting connection holding the housing cup and top together.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “top” that “are held together by a force-fitting connection.” Ex. 3001, 1:28– 29 (claim 1), 2:51–52 (claim 23). The parties disagree about whether the references on which Petitioner relies teach or suggest this limitation. Pet. 28–32, 64–66; Prelim. Resp. 53–61. As discussed more completely below, we are able to determine whether to institute trial without deciding precisely what the ’835 patent means when it describes two parts as “held together by a force-fitting connection.” Accordingly, we need not, and do not, construe this term expressly. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). Although we need not decide the precise meaning of “held together by a force-fitting connection” in order to decide whether to institute trial, we note (1) that, without some evidence to the contrary, a battery casing whose half-parts are “held together by” a particular condition must be a battery casing whose half-parts would no longer be held together if the condition were not present, and (2) that neither party has directed us to any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, whatever a “force-fitting connection” is, a battery made in accordance with the teachings of the prior art is not a battery that is “held together by a force-fitting connection” unless that battery would cease to be held together in the absence of the “force-fitting connection.”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Even if we accept Petitioner’s position that Kaun suggests radial forces around its seal, Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence that such forces hold a housing cup and housing top together. With respect to the key “held together” recitation, Petitioner’s only argument or evidence in the Petition is a sole quote purportedly from Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Peckerar:” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,153,835
• ROKU, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 7, 2023 · IPR2022-01258 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood that Alger anticipated claims 184, 185, and 188–190 or that Alger-based combinations rendered claims 186, 187, 189, 191, and 192 obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “§ 42.4(a), we may only 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) (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (2022). Applying that standard, we do not institute an inter partes review, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsNot reached

    “1 Roku also filed a Notice Ranking Petitions, arguing that we should institute trial both in this proceeding and in IPR2021-01257 where Roku challenges the same claims of the ’819 patent on different grounds. Paper 3; see also Paper 8 (IOENGINE’s response). Because we deny institution on the merits, we need not address whether it would be appropriate to institute trial in both proceedings.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering or related discipline, and experience in programming software or firmware for computers/peripheral devices or databases/servers.” Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 54–58). Petitioner also contends that this person “would have had a working understanding of computer hardware, operating systems, encryption, data storage, user interfaces, and communication protocols.” Id. (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 54–58). IOENGINE agrees with that articulation for this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. We find the parties’ agreed articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’819 patent and its description of the relevant prior-art background. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, 1:14–2:29. Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Given the evidence on this record, we agree with IOENGINE that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the word terminal in claim 184 refers at least to a computing device. Prelim. Resp. 13. As IOENGINE correctly argues, the word terminal in claim 184 corresponds to the “access terminal” or “AT” discussed in the ’819 patent specification. See Prelim. Resp. 14. According to the ’819 patent, “Access terminals (ATs) may be any number of computing devices such as servers, workstations, desktop computers, laptops, portable digital assistants (PDAs), and/or the like.” Ex. 1101, 3:56–59 (emphasis added). The ’819 patent also discloses that “[t]he type of AT used is not important,” but that it “should provide . . . an operating environment for the user to engage the TCAP through the AT,” such as “Java and/or Windows runtime environments, which allows the TCAP to interact with the input/output mechanisms of the AT.” Id. at 3:59–4:3. This reference to an access terminal’s operating or runtime environment supports IOENGINE’s position that the “terminal” contemplated in the ’819 patent is a computing device.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,447,819
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2023 · IPR2022-01235 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Buckley and Bates render the challenged claims obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We determine that the Petitioner adequately shows that a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the relevant teachings of Buckley and Bates as recited in claim 51 with a reasonable expectation of success. Summary as to Claim 51 Petitioner’s showing as to claim 51 is supported and reasonable. The cited passages of Buckley and Bates support Petitioner’s argument that all the limitations of claim 51 of the ’721 patent are taught by the cited art. And, Petitioner shows a motivation to combine the relevant teachings of Buckley and Bates with a reasonable expectation of success. Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of showing that claim 51 of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in view of the cited references.14 2.” slip op. at 33

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

    “2018, “[claims] of a patent . . . shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the [claims] in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the [claims] in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims 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) (2018); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We construe only terms that are in controversy and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner proposes that we construe several claim terms but does not contend that construction of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Pet. 13–15. Patent Owner disputes the constructions proffered by Petitioner but does not contend or establish that construction of any term is necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Prelim. Resp. 10–13. We determine that, as shown below, it is not necessary to explicitly construe any claim terms in order to make this institution decision.9 9 If either party contends that explicit claim construction is necessary in order to make a final determination whether or not any challenged claim is unpatentable based on the arguments and evidence presented, it should clearly explain why during trial and provide a clear and unambiguous construction with supporting evidence including specifically identifying the challenges, claims, and limitations to which the construction is necessary.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “a “POSITA[6] at the time of the ’721 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and approximately two years of experience with networks. Additional education might compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 46–48). Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification of the ’721 patent and the cited prior art. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.7 Based on this unopposed contention in the Petition, our preliminary, non-binding determination8 is to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Id. at 24–25 (footnote omitted). Patent Owner acknowledges that Dr. Madisetti testifies on behalf of Petitioner that “Buckley teaches transmitting the mobile telephone’s IP address (as the hostname) when transmitting the location identifier in the SIP Invite message,” but argues that this is an unwarranted conclusion. Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 92).12 However, while Patent Owner’s argument is highly critical of Dr. Madisetti’s testimony, Patent Owner relies primarily on unsupported attorney argument as to what a POSITA would have known from Buckley’s disclosure of the “wireless UE” sending a “calling party’s SIP URI” to contradict Dr. Madisetti’s testimony. See id. at 29–31. Based on this record, we credit Dr. Madisetti’s testimony.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,880,721
• Facebook, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01264 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 7, 10–12, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Heer, Chang, and Callihan; the Board did not reach the Konig-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’475 patent (i.e., December, 2002) “would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and at least two years of experience in 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (effective Mach 16, 2013) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the ’475 patent’s effective filing date (December 19, 2002) precedes the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 US Patent No. 6,981,040 B1, filed June 20, 2000, issued Dec. 27, 2005. Ex. 1003. 3 Millhollon et al., MICROSOFT INTERNET EXPLORER 3.0 FRONTRUNNER (1996). Ex. 1004. 4 Chang et al., MINING THE WORLD WIDE WEB AN INFORMATION SEARCH APPROACH (2001). Ex. 1006. 5 Steven E. Callihan, LEARN HTML IN A WEEKEND (1998). Ex. 1007. 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,345,253 B1, filed June 18, 1999, issued February 5, 2002. Ex. 1008. 7 Jeffrey Heer and Ed H. Chi, Identification of Web User Traffic Composition Using Multi-Modal Clustering and Information Scent, Proceedings of the Workshop on Web Mining, First SIAM Conference on Data Mining (SMD 2001), Chicago, Ill. (Apr. 7, 2001). Ex. 1009. systems for retrieval and processing of information, such as web pages obtained over the Internet.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed level. See PO Resp. 29 (“For the purposes of this proceeding, PARC and its expert have applied this level of skill in the art.”). Various factors in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is consistent with the ’475 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The record supports Petitioner. The plain meaning of “determining proximal information” in light of the specification does not require storing information about links in association with those links. In addition, requirement [3], “in association with the link” is superfluous to requirement [1], “information near or derived from a link.” Further, the plain meaning of “determining proximal information” in light of the specification does not require aspect [2], characterizing the content accessible through the link.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In any event, there is no need on this record to construe “multiple modalities” explicitly, because Patent Owner does not dispute that Heer discloses “multiple modalities,” according to Petitioner’s showing in the Heer-based ground. Patent Owner’s argument, instead, addresses Petitioner’s showing in the Konig-based grounds, which we do not reach because our determination in the Heer-based grounds is dispositive of the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 52–59 (arguing that Konig does not disclose multiple modalities); Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) (non-precedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and the Board has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”). 3. Other Terms Additionally, there is no need to construe any other claim terms expressly to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. 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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 17

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

    “These arguments tend to support Petitioner’s showing that an artisan of ordinary skill would have been able to choose types of information such as proximal information to improve clustering with a reasonable expectation of success using routine methods. See Reply 14–15; Pet. 55–57. As the Petition states, “it was well-known that the text associated with (i.e., proximal to) links (and image links) could provide useful information.” Pet. 53. Also, the Petition shows that Heer itself “discloses identifying both hyperlinks and text on a web page.” Id. (arguing each web page is represented as a “multi-modal vector that is comprised of four modalities in the current implementation: page content, URLs, inlinks and outlinks” (quoting Ex. 1009, 3)). As the Petition also states, “[a]n ordinarily skilled artisan implementing Heer would thus have appreciated that textual information included within links and image links could provide additional information to improve the quality of similarity clustering.” Id. at 57. In other words, Petitioner generally shows that proximal information improves clustering, whereas Patent Owner argues that all types of information do not improve clustering, which does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. So even though Heer generally states that “we believe the practice of utilizing all available information in clustering can significantly improve on more traditional unimodal techniques” (Ex. 1009, 2), this is in the context of an artisan of ordinary skill using information to improve clustering. Given Heer’s explicit teachings, as Petitioner argues, an artisan of ordinary skill would “would have been capable of [adding proximal information] in an appropriate manner,” by testing or otherwise, even if the claims require accuracy. See Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 54, 55, 58).11 Accordingly, as the Petition asserts, modifying Heer’s vector clustering system would have been obvious “because such proximal information represents information likely to be relevant to a user’s interests.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 219).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,043,475 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,043,475
• Google LLC v. Neonode Smartphone LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01041 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Google did not show claims 1–7, 9, 12, 13, and 15–17 unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or suggest the claimed multi-step activation involving gliding away.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For Google, Dr. Wobbrock testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, Human-Computer Interaction, Symbolic Systems, or related engineering disciplines, and at least two years of experience designing and programming graphical user interfaces,” but that “[r]elevant work experience can substitute for formal education and advanced degree studies could substitute for work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 49. Testifying for Neonode, Dr. Rosenberg states that for his declaration, he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” as Dr. Wobbrock. Ex. 2019 ¶ 27. We find Dr. Wobbrock’s uncontested articulation to be reasonable in light of the subject matter involved in the ’879 patent and the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:49–61 (stating that the ’879 patent addresses technical problems including “to provide a user-friendly interface . . . on a small handheld computer unit”). Thus, we adopt it for our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Google does not propose any explicit claim constructions in its Petition. See Pet. 4. Neonode does not propose any explicit constructions either, but in its Response, Neonode raises a number of claim construction arguments regarding the term gliding . . . away as it appears in limitation 1c, to which Google responds in its Reply. See PO Resp. 31–50, 66–69; Pet. Reply 7–12, 19–21; see also PO Sur-reply 1–10, 19–21. We do not need to construe this term explicitly for our decision, and to the extent we need to interpret this or any other terms, we address the terms below in the context of the prior art. 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’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find Google’s argument unpersuasive.10 Tarpenning’s assignment operation for hotkey 82 is in the nature of a drag-and-drop operation, where the user drags the pen from hotkey 82 to the intended menu item to which hotkey 82 will be assigned. But Google identifies the “function [to be] activated”—not as the actual assignment of hotkey 82 to the menu item when the user lifts from the intended menu item—but as the underlying software process that looks to see whether the user has lifted yet from the selected menu item. See Pet. Reply 19–20; Tr. 37:17–39:16. Essentially, Google asserts that the recited function is part of processing the gesture itself, which we do not find persuasive. As counsel for Neonode argued at the hearing, unless the user lifts off from a menu item, no assignment to hotkey 82 has been made and nothing has actually been done. See Tr. 80:4– 13. 10 We also consider this argument untimely, as it appears to contradict Google’s original theory of obviousness in the Petition, which states that the “‘assignment’ function” is “completed when the user reaches the target item to be assigned.” Pet. 79; see also Tr. 80:2–3 (counsel for Neonode arguing, “I submit that’s not only a new point they’re making, it’s unsupported and . . . incorrect.”); 37 CFR § 42.23(b) (“A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response[] or decision on institution.”). We also find unpersuasive Google’s original argument in the Petition that the recited “function” is activated when the user reaches the target menu item being assigned to hotkey 82. See Pet. 79. This is essentially a traditional drag-and-drop operation. But we credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that when the user lifts from the intended menu item, no function has actually been activated. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 139. Rather, at this point a function has merely been assigned to the hotkey for future activation by touching the hotkey. See id. Thus, we determine that Google has not identified any disclosure in Tarpenning in which any “function is activated by a multi-step operation” as recited in limitation 1c. Absent that teaching or suggestion, Google’s argument (Pet. 80–82) does not adequately articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tarpenning’s book menu key 84 or library menu key 86 to achieve limitation 1c, and we find Google’s obviousness argument unpersuasive as to claim 1.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed

    “would have understood Robertson’s “flick” gesture to comprise “gliding . . . away” as we interpret that term. Robertson says very little about the “flick” gestures themselves, other than using the word flick. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 39. Robertson teaches that its gestures should be “easily differentiated,” and in addition to “flick” gestures, Robertson also teaches “drag and drop” operations. Id. at 36 (“[Y]ou can drag a document icon and drop it into a printer icon to print the document . . . .”). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that, for the XButton system to immediately distinguish between dragging and flicking, there must be some distinction between a “flick” and a “drag,” and that the most plausible difference is in terms of their speed, distance, or both. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 90. Although Robertson discloses that its system is capable of recognizing gestures that start on an XButton and extend outside it (see Ex. 1005, 43), a “glide” or that the distinction is arbitrary. Cf. Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Descriptive words . . . are commonly used in patent claims, to ‘avoid[] a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1995))) the only gesture for which Robertson specifically indicates this would be necessary is a “circling gesture[] for grouping, moving, and copying graphical objects” (id. at 39). Thus, we disagree with Google that Robertson’s teaching in this regard is relevant to what Robertson means by a “flick” gesture. We also find persuasive Neonode’s dictionary definitions, spanning from 1993 to 2012, which consistently indicate that the word flick describes a movement that is “light,” “sharp” or “quick,” and “jerky” or “sudden,” as opposed to definitions of “glide” referring to a movement that is “smooth,” “continuous,” and possibly “quiet” or “effortless.” Exs. 2049, 2050, 2052, 2057.9 And although the evidence postdates Robertson, we find relevant the supporting evidence that modern Apple and Google developers maintain a meaningful distinction between “flick” and “swipe” gestures. See Ex. 2022, 4; Ex. 2023, 6; Ex. 2025, 21; Ex. 2026, 5; Ex. 2029, 2; Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 80–81. We further credit Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion that in the relevant time frame, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted a “flick” gesture as one in which “the pen would touch the screen, but only moves on the screen for a very short distance and is quickly lifted from the screen in a ‘jerky’ motion.” Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 85–86. 9 The earliest dictionary definitions (Ex. 2052) are from 1993, which is roughly contemporary with Robertson (1991), and are sufficiently close in time to be relevant. Google does not present any evidence suggesting that the meaning of flick had changed between 1991 and 1993. See PO Sur-reply 2. Thus, we agree with Neonode that Google has not shown that Robertson’s “flick” gesture comprises “gliding . . . away,” and thus falls within the scope of claim 1. Finally, we also agree with Neonode that Google has not established that Robertson’s “insert” (caret) gesture comprises “gliding . . . away.” Although Robertson does not provide much information about this gesture, we find Dr. Rosenberg’s interpretation and annotated version of Figure 1 (Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 99–102) more credible than those of Dr. Wobbrock (Ex. 1003 ¶ 108). We credit Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the “insert” gesture to be similar to the way a person would draw a caret to indicate an insertion within existing text. See Ex. 2019 ¶ 99. Thus, we agree it would involve two brief, connected movements with a sharp peak, neither of which would be a continuous gliding or swiping motion. Id. ¶¶ 100–102.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,095,879 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,095,879

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.