• Luminex International Co., Ltd. v. Signify Holdings B.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00101 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition challenges because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted

    “On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Further, the Director remanded the case to the panel and instructed the panel “to determine whether the Petition presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and to determine whether to institute inter partes review accordingly.” Paper 12, 5–6. As noted above and explained in the patentability analysis below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. See supra § I; infra §§ III.E–III.H.” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner

    “On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)).” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied discretionary otherDecided for petitioner

    “On August 20, 2024, the Director granted Petitioner’s request and vacated the panel’s decision denying institution. Paper 12, 6. In doing so, the Director determined that Menard is not a real party in interest or a privy of Petitioner under § 315(b) and that § 315(b) does not bar institution. Id. at 5. The Director also determined that § 315(a) “does not apply to the ‘cross-claims’ asserted by Petitioner” and that § 315(a) does not bar institution. Id. Additionally, the Director declined to exercise discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in view of the Wisconsin case because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation. Id.; see Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (June 21, 2022)1 at 3, 7–8 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)).” slip op. at 4

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,299,336
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00567 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Cho disclosed the claimed reservoir structure required by the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Therefore, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Cho describes “a liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” For at least this reason, and based on the current record, Petitioner has failed to establish that claim 43 is anticipated by Cho. 3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner has not shown that Cho describes a “liquid reservoir [that] is partially defined by the exterior of an atomizing chamber” in either of the “separated embodiment” or the “integrated embodiment.” Pet. 48–50. With respect to the “separated embodiment,” Petitioner identifies the inside of storage container 1201 as the “interior of the cartridge housing” and the outside of air inhalation tube 1313 as the “exterior of the atomizing chamber.” Id. But Annotated Figure 11 does not show air inhalation tube 1313 as part of atomizing chamber 1203. Therefore, the liquid reservoir, i.e., loading portion 1205, is not “at least partially defined by . . . an exterior of the atomizing chamber.”” slip op. at 18

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

    “3. Remaining Claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 Petitioner asserts that claims 44, 76, 77, 81, 86, 89, and 93 are anticipated by Cho. Pet. 35–46, 54–64. In addition, Petitioner alleges that the combination of Cho and Nielsen would have rendered obvious claim 80 of the ’114 patent. Pet. 64–70. Each of claims 44, 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93 requires a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” either by virtue of dependence (claims 76, 77, 80, 81, 86, 89, and 93) or independent recitation (claim 44). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:9, 19:1–19:63. Because Petitioner has failed to show a reasonable likelihood that Cho teaches a “liquid reservoir at least partially defined by an interior of the cartridge housing and an exterior of the atomizing chamber,” we decline to institute on the remaining claims.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “at the time of the ’114 patent would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19). Patent Owner submits that “the arguments in this Response apply regardless of which standard is adopted,” and that “Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. John Collins, was a POSITA at the time of the ’114 patent under either [Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s] definition.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’114 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’114 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
• Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 20, 2024 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds and granted Apple’s motion to join IPR2023-01183.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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) (2018). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’641 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’641 patent on all the grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition. And, for the reasons set forth below, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “In considering a motion for joinder, and whether such joinder is appropriate, the Board may consider “whether a new ground of unpatentability is raised in the second petition, how the cost and schedule of the first proceeding will be impacted if joinder is granted, and whether granting joinder will add to the complexity of briefing and/or discovery.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 20197 at 76 (citing Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Upon review of the prior art of record and the Petitioner’s arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision as it appears consistent with the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner provides constructions for the terms “A method for improving . . . characterized in that,” “ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5), “as calculated by a specific capacity with a charge voltage limited to 4.2 V” (claim 1), and “at least 7500 of capacity” (claim 11). Pet. 8–11. For purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8

  Claim constructioncites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10

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

    “(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,084,825
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00267 · APJ Avelyn M Ross · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable expectation of success for the proposed § 103 combination.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “STANDARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2

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

    “green, left), placed inside the housing between the housing and heating element (red), and surrounding the heating element and portions of the liquid storage portion (blue). Otherwise, Combined Figure 4 is nearly the same as Annotated Figure 4. Compare Combined Fig. 4, with Ann. Fig. 4. Thus, Petitioner does not propose a simple substitution to include the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 in the same manner as used in Thorens231. Rather, Petitioner proposes including the mouthpiece housing of Thorens231 in the device of Thorens788 and then further modifying its placement by inserting it into the housing. See Combined Fig. 4. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Janet persuasively explain why this arrangement would be expected to be successful nor do they allege that such a modification would have been within the skill set of the ordinarily skilled artisan. In contrast, Patent Owner explains that Petitioner’s [Combined] Figure 4 appears to block any airflow through the device and out of the mouthpiece. Petitioner and its expert do not account for how the mouthpiece would be secured to the liquid storage portion in Thorens788. Moreover, as drawn by Petitioner, the wick touches what is presumably the air inlet for the mouthpiece (although Petitioner does not discuss where the air inlet is), which could adversely impact performance or user experience, such as draw resistance[.] Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have” slip op. at 8

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

    “Prelim. Resp. 50–51. Because Petitioner did not direct our attention to any argument or testimony to account for whether or how the modified device would function, Petitioner did not meet its initial burden of proof of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an expectation of success in the combination. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH, 8 F.4th 1331, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that it is “at all times, [petitioner’s] burden to show that the claims would have been obvious, including that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the claimed invention”).” slip op. at 8

  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,134,722
• Njoy, LLC / Njoy Holdings, Inc. v. Juul Labs, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00536 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because NJOY did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have been obvious over the proposed prior art.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design, Product Design, or similar field, with at least two years of industry experience in one of these fields, and such POSA would have been familiar with electrically powered vaporizing articles, their components, or the underlying technologies.” Pet. 6–7. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a B.S. in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent degree, and either at least two years of experience designing electro-mechanical consumer products or an advanced degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field,” and that “[m]ore education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 17–22). In light of the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on our review of the ’981 patent and the prior art of record, we determine that the definition offered by Petitioner comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand the ’981 patent and the prior art. However, our decision would not change if we applied Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 12

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

    “None of the constructions proffered by Petitioner is dispositive of the issue of whether to institute inter partes review. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction for any term. 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”); 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 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “integrate Liu783’s connector with its battery component in order to decrease the possibility of damage to the device during assembly/disassembly. Pet. 23. Petitioner, however, does not provide any evidence that such damage was a point of concern. See generally Pet. Nor does Petitioner sufficiently explain how the integrated battery component/connector would result in less damage. See id. (failing to quantify the alleged benefit nor providing any evidence to support its contention that an integrated connector/battery component would decrease damage to the device). Nor does Petitioner sufficiently support its contention that the modified Liu783 device would be more beneficial to the consumer because there are fewer pieces to assemble or misplace. See id. Indeed, Petitioner’s argument runs directly counter to Liu783’s own disclosure which asserts that its three-piece design is more convenient than the previous two-piece design. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 19 (stating “assembly and detachment of the atomizer and the connector become very convenient”), ¶ 3 (stating an “object of the present invention is to . . . facilitate the installation, detachment, and replacement of the electronic cigarette). Similarly, Petitioner does not sufficiently support its contention that integrating the components would reduce the complexity and expense of manufacturing the device (Pet. 23), which is counter to Liu783’s statement that the object of its invention is to “decrease manufacture and use cost” (Ex. 1010 ¶ 3). Conclusory statements by an expert that do not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based are entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,606,981
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00458 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are unpatentable under § 103 over the five asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2020) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, with at least two years’ experience in computer networking/security.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 16–17 (the positions in the PO Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal). The parties’ proposals are substantially the same. Our decision and analysis would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “c. Analysis The ’678 patent describes storage containers as “directories, directory structures, web directories, folders, . . . files and namespaces of the same.” Id. at 6:44–47; id. at 10:12–15. However, it discloses that data is “stored in the namespaces, directories, folders, files or other storage containers of one or more cloud platforms,” which seems to equate namespaces with storage containers. Id. at 9:23–25. In claim 6, “the step of configuring the namespaces comprises storing content of the file as filenames.” Id. at 20:20–22. One definition of “namespace” is a “grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 130 (Microsoft Press 2002) (Ex. 3001). “The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device.” Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 7

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

    “set of names available for naming things.’” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1014 (Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms)); Tr. 5:18–20, 7:21– 8:1. This definition is consistent with the extrinsic evidence cited above. Patent Owner largely agrees with this proposed definition. Dr. Black testifies that “to the extent a namespace is applied to object identifiers, it will define the set of allowable identifiers within a particular context.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 69 (cited in PO Resp. 19). Dr. Black agrees with Dr. Lee’s testimony “that a directory named ‘documents’ is a namespace for the files within that directory––within that ‘documents’ namespace, files can be identified by simply referring to the file name, such as ‘foo.’” Id. ¶ 68. Patent Owner however, asserts that “a name itself (such as an identifier that identifies an object) is not a namespace.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that the ’678 patent provides “an example of creating a namespace for file chunks as part of the encryption process” as “each chunk can be encrypted based on public and private/secret keys defined by the encryption module 210” “where keys are managed based on user-assigned policies.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]hese policies therefore create a namespace that defines the naming convention for the file chunks (e.g. encryption based on a particular key).” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “storing the file chunks in a folder creates a namespace scope for the file chunks” and namespaces are configured by storing file content as file names. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71); see Tr. 8:5–11, 11:2–12:11. d. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “namespace” as “a set of names available for naming things.” Consistent with various exemplary embodiments described in the ’678 patent, the set of names available for naming things may be based on a policy that defines the naming convention for files or file chunks, and a namespace may be created by storing files or file chunks in a folder to create a namespace scope for the files or file chunks.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,280,678 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,280,678
• ARM Limited v. Icpillar LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00566 · APJ Donna M Praiss · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Banerjee.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To institute inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “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). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’657 patent, and we determine inter partes review of all claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition.1” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”).9 The Guidance Memo clarifies “the PTAB’s current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation.” Id. at 2. The Guidance Memo instructs us not to “discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). The Guidance Memo” slip op. at 11

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

    “For purposes of this Decision, we construe the term “outputting by the processor software programming commands to be executed by the hardware integrated circuit for controlling the electronic device” as referring to software programming commands that are capable of controlling an electronic device, that are output by a processor, and that are not merely a circuit design for fabrication. We emphasize that this construction is preliminary and based on the current record; to the extent the parties wish to argue for a different construction or to further clarify this construction, we encourage them to present arguments and supporting evidence at trial. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any” slip op. at 9

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

    “On the present record, we determine that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Banerjee teaches outputting software intended to be installed on the designed integrated circuit that is capable of controlling the device into which the designed integrated circuit is installed. At paragraphs 72–83, Banerjee discloses the operation of its operating system optimization module. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38, 72–83. In particular, Banerjee teaches that the operating system optimization module can “compile a symmetric multiprocessing operating system” and that “the optimized operating system is compiled into a reduced footprint operating system that is instantiated in the device.” Id. ¶¶ 82–83. Because Banerjee teaches both compiling an operating system and instantiating that operating system in the designed device, the present record shows sufficiently that Banerjee teaches outputting software to run on the designed device. Patent Owner’s declarant, Joseph C. McAlexander III, P.E., disagrees with this interpretation, testifying that Banerjee’s paragraph 83 teaches only “compil[ing] the characteristics of the typical or ‘baseline’ ‘operating system configuration’ . . . in order to analyze its expected ‘footprint’ on the IC and how it is expected to be instantiated on the device.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 65. But the idea that Banerjee is concerned only with analyzing how the operating system is expected to be instantiated appears to contradict Banerjee’s teaching that the “reduced footprint operating system . . . is instantiated in the device,” which suggests actual, not merely expected, instantiation in the device. On the present record, beyond stating that “Banerjee only outputs a hardware description file,” Mr. McAlexander does not explain why Banerjee should be interpreted in this alternate fashion. Id. ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 44, 69, 84). There is no explanation of why the cited paragraphs of Banerjee should be interpreted to limit Banerjee’s disclosure (which, as discussed above, includes a teaching that the operating system is compiled and instantiated in the designed device) to merely outputting a hardware description file. Id. Accordingly, on the present record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Banerjee teaches or suggests limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,367,657
• ARM Limited v. Icpillar LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00476 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 14 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Banerjee renders at least claim 1 obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would be “familiar with automated circuit design” and “possess[] this knowledge through training and work experience, including have a Bachelor’s or Master’s Degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least three years of practical experience.” Pet. 11–12. At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not challenge the Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp., generally. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’899 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “According to Petitioner, the term should be broadly construed to encompass “internal outputs from compilers that are then used by other portions of the design” and “any form of software or mechanics of ‘providing’ software.” Prelim. Reply 1–3. Petitioner contends that the term must be construed broadly to encompass the embodiment shown in the ’899 patent’s Figure 4 illustrating output 71 of compiler 67, which is an internal input to ASIC Design 69 described as “a circuit design such as a layout or a schematic that can be sent out to a manufacturer for fabrication.” Id. at 1–2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:59–61) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner directs us to the disclosure that Figure 4’s output 71 (ASIC Programming) “may be software to be programmed and/or stored in a fabricated ASIC.” Id. at 2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:61–62) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner contends that the ’899 patent defines “software” broadly. Id. Specifically, Petitioner directs us to a portion of the ’899 patent’s specification that states “[h]erein, reference to software may encompass one or more applications, byte code, one or more computer programs, one or more executable, one or more instructions, logic, machine code, one or more scripts, or source code, and vice versa where appropriate.” Ex. 1001, 17:6–10. Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proffered claim construction is incorrect because the language of the claim itself “does not suggest ‘internal’ software for use by the design tool, nor that the second recited ‘output[]’ could be part of the first.” Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. According to Patent Owner, viewed in context, the ’899 patent defines “software” broadly for “an exemplary computer system, not the invention’s outputs.” Id. Patent Owner asserts this definition describes the software types that a computer could execute, not a definition of “software programming commands” recited in claim 1[d]. Id. Regarding the ’899 patent’s Figure 4, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner has not shown that Programming 71 must be an internal output for internal use because both Design 69 and Programming 71 are shown as outputs, not inputs, of the compiler. Id. at 4. Regarding the term “layout,” Patent Owner asserts this is merely a description of physical hardware for fabrication and that “[i]t is impossible for ‘software programming commands’ to be ‘stored in “layouts.”’ Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 32, 76, 90). For purposes of this Decision, we construe the term “outputting by the processor software programming commands to be executed by the hardware integrated circuit for controlling the electronic device” as referring to software programming commands that are capable of controlling an electronic device, that are output by a processor, and that are not merely a circuit design for fabrication. We emphasize that this construction is preliminary and based on the current record; to the extent the parties wish to argue for a different construction or to further clarify this construction, we encourage them to present arguments and supporting evidence at trial.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “clarifications concerning the application of the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure For Discretionary Denials In AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, issued June 21, 2022 (“Guidance Memo”).5 The Guidance Memo clarifies “the PTAB’s current application of Fintiv to discretionary institution where there is parallel litigation.” Id. at 2. The Guidance Memo instructs us not to “discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_ proc_discretionary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_ 20220621_.pdf. stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). When such a stipulation is offered after the Board’s decision on whether to institute review, it is too late to gain the benefit of the rule articulated in the Guidance Memo. NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc., IPR2021-01556, Paper 13, 4 (PTAB Sept. 7, 2022) (precedential). Here, Petitioner “stipulates ‘not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.’” Prelim. Reply 10 (quoting Ex. 1020, 1). Petitioner offered this stipulation prior to a decision on whether to institute review, so it is timely under NXP. Accordingly, pursuant to the Guidance Memo, we do not exercise discretion under Fintiv to deny institution.” slip op. at 11

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

    “c) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Banerjee. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review with respect to all grounds asserted in the Petition. 3. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 14 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’899 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,924,899
• Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00538 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–10, 13–18, 20–22, 24, 31, and 32 are unpatentable; claims 2–4, 23, and 25–30 were not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend was granted in part and denied in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “d. Summary For the above reasons, we determine that Patent Owner has not shown” slip op. at 100

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibit 1034 and page 10 of the Reply” slip op. at 86

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “A. “housing” Patent Owner proposes that we construe the term “housing” to mean” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of non-obviousness (“secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). For us to give substantial weight to objective evidence of nonobviousness, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining non-” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,365,223 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,365,223

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.