• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00422 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 6, 8–10, 21, 23–26, 29–34, 38–40, 42, 43, 45–53, 55, 59–61, 63–70, 76, 81, 82, 85, 87–89, 100, 102–104, 107–115, 117, 120–124, 126, 129–136, 142, 145–147, 149, and …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “In light of the guidance provided by the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we should consider this petition along with the petition in IPR2024-00421. Both petitions rely on the same primary references, Baig, Costa, and either Zwicky or Banga690. Because the ’260 has a large number of claims (152) spanning over 10 columns, this is one of those situations where more than one petition is necessary for Petitioner to address each of those claims. We do not find Patent Owner’s argument regarding the number of claims asserted in the litigation to be persuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 7 (“Importantly, Petitioner does not allege that ‘the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation . . . .’” (quoting CPTG 59)). First, we have reviewed the complaint Patent Owner asserted against Petitioner and do not see any limits on which claims are asserted. See Ex. 3001. Second, Patent Owner has not identified any claims that it is not asserting. See Prelim. Resp. Therefore, based on the current record, Patent Owner is asserting all 152 claims in litigation. Moreover, we are not aware of any legal authority that limits inter partes review to only claims challenged in litigation. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this petition.14” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Unlike Adaptics, which involved potentially hundreds of distinct grounds challenging each claim due to the use of “and/or” in the catch-all ground (see Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19), the Petition only has, at most, two grounds for each claim (see Pet. 4). Nor has Patent Owner shown any evidence of improper “shadow grounds.” Although Patent Owner points to the size of the declaration testimony and the number of exhibits relied on by the declarants, Patent Owner has not pointed to any examples of alleged improper use of the testimony or exhibits. We decline to perform analysis that is missing from the Preliminary Response. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva 181 F.3d at 866–67 (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). To be clear, we make no judgment on the propriety of the declarants’ testimony or the cited exhibits at this time. If appropriate, Patent Owner can challenge (1) the admissibility of the exhibits and testimony and (2) specific arguments as going beyond the grounds stated in the Petition during the trial. But simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularly requirement is not met.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and two years of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content delivery systems and Internet advertising.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144–49). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’260 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.12” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Intent Iq, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2024-00421 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 7, 11–20, 22, 26–28, 35–38, 41, 44, 54, 56–58, 61, 62, 71–75, 77–80, 83, 84, 86, 90–99, 101, 105, 106, 116, 118, 119, 125, 127, 128, 137–141, 143, …

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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) (2024). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “states that “the Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate” and “the Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect to a particular patent will be appropriate.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (emphasis omitted, citing CTPG, 59). Patent Owner also argues that because Petitioner “has not and cannot justify” its four parallel petitions, the Board should deny institution in the instant proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 4–5; see also id. at 6 (“Petitioner fails to justify why all four Petitions, filed on the same day and challenging the same independent claims, are all necessary and appropriate.” (emphasis omitted)). Patent Owner also argues that (1) different prior art does not justify multiple petitions, (2) because Patent Owner “expressly stipulates that it will not ‘attempt to antedate or disqualify’ the prior art relied upon by Petitioner,” there are no potential priority issues, and (3) Petitioner is speculating as to the potential for disputes around claim construction. Id. at 6–7. Because this is the first ranked petition (Paper 3, 1–2), we do not exercise our discretion to deny this petition on the basis of multiple parallel petitions. Although Patent Owner has presented arguments why Petitioner may not be entitled to four petitions,14 Patent Owner does not persuasively argue why we should not institute on at least one of the ranked petitions.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Unlike Adaptics, which involved potentially hundreds of distinct grounds challenging each claim due to the use of “and/or” in the catch-all ground (see Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19), the Petition only has, at most, two grounds for each claim (see Pet. 4). Nor has Patent Owner shown any evidence of improper “shadow grounds.” Although Patent Owner points to the size of the declaration testimony and the number of exhibits relied on by the declarants, Patent Owner has not pointed to any examples of alleged improper use of the testimony or exhibits. We decline to perform analysis that is missing from the Preliminary Response. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva 181 F.3d at 866–67 (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). To be clear, we make no judgment on the propriety of the declarants’ testimony or the cited exhibits at this time. If appropriate, Patent Owner can challenge (1) the admissibility of the exhibits and testimony and (2) specific arguments as going beyond the grounds stated in the Petition during the trial. But simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularly requirement is not met.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar discipline, and two years of experience with the design and/or implementation of network-based content delivery systems and Internet advertising.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 144–49). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’260 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.12” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,861,260
• HP Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCAdverse judgment
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00404 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Adverse judgment

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s request for adverse judgment after it disclaimed all challenged claims: 1, 3, 4, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18, and 22.

  RulingsAdverse judgment

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “Rule 42.73(b) permits a party to “request judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding,” and states that “disclaimer of a claim such that the party has no remaining claim in the trial” will be construed as a request for adverse judgment. Under these circumstances, we grant Patent Owner’s motion for adverse judgment.” slip op. at 2

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,624,844
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00418 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims, exercising § 314(a) discretion because the third-ranked parallel petition did not justify an additional proceeding.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “the prior art was utilized in related proceedings supports instituting three petitions other than the fact that three petitions rely on different prior art that has been used in prior petitions to different effect. As Patent Owner points out, however, “[n]early all parallel petitions involve different proposed prior art” (Prelim. Resp. 7) and, in this case, the differences in whether that prior art was the subject of prior proceedings are not sufficient to justify filing two additional petitions.” slip op. at 15

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,249
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00417 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of review of claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, and 23–25 under § 314(a), finding the petitioner had not justified a second parallel petition.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied

    “proceedings.14 We give some weight to the argument that the first-ranked petition addresses an argument Patent Owner raised in a prior IPR proceeding. Less persuasive is Petitioner’s argument that the second-ranked petition relies on two references rather than one for the URL redirection. In this regard we note that: 1) we found that Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of success in proving obviousness (including for the URL limitation) based on a two reference combination, 2) notwithstanding its reliance on a single reference for one of its grounds, the second-ranked petition is, like the first ranked petition, grounded in obviousness, and 3) although the second ranked petition includes one ground that relies on a single reference, it also includes three additional grounds challenging the exact same claim set based on three different combinations of prior art, making it difficult to determine how meaningful the difference in the number of references relied upon is. Moreover, Petitioner does not make any effort to explain why grounds relying on these two different approaches––i.e., single-reference URL redirection and two reference URL redirection––could not have been presented in a single petition. This omission detracts from Petitioner’s argument that multiple petitions are merited. This is particularly true given that: 1) Petitioner’s first ranked petition includes 16 grounds relying, in part, on various combinations of two primary references that Petitioner describes as “similar, though not identical” (Notice, 4) with two secondary references,” slip op. at 16

  Discretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,249
• Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00416 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, and 23–25, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Merriman and Jaye.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable based on the grounds advanced here. We decline to deny the Petition on a discretionary basis as requested by Patent Owner. Thus, for reasons explained below, we institute inter partes review of claims 1, 3–11, 13–21, and 23–25 of the ’249 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsOther

    “DISCRETIONARY DENIAL IN VIEW OF PARALLEL PETITIONS Petitioner filed three petitions for inter partes review of claims 1, 3– 11, 13–21, and 23–25 of the ’249 patent: this Petition, the petition filed in IPR2024-00417, and the petition filed in IPR2024-00418. See Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc., IPR2024-00417, Paper 2 (PTAB, filed Mar. 1, 2024); Freewheel Media, Inc. v. Almondnet, Inc., IPR2024-00418, Paper 2 (PTAB, filed Mar. 1, 2024). Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not shown that this is one of the ‘rare’ instances where multiple petitions are needed.” Prelim. Resp. 1. Petitioner requests that we consider this Petition before we consider the Petitions in IPR2024-00417, and IPR2024-00418. Paper 3, 1. Accordingly, we reserve consideration of whether multiple petitions are merited for our decisions in IPR2024-00417, and IPR2024- 00418.” slip op. at 12

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. Unlike in Adaptics, which involved potentially hundreds of distinct grounds challenging each claim due to the use of “and/or” in the catch-all ground (see Adaptics, Paper 20 at 19), the Petition relies on four grounds, comprised of combinations of two primary references with two secondary references, for each of the challenged claims (see Pet. 5–6). Nor has Patent Owner shown any evidence of improper “shadow grounds.” Although Patent Owner points to the size of declaration testimony and the number of exhibits relied on by the declarants, Patent Owner has not pointed to any examples of alleged improper use of the testimony or exhibits. We decline to perform analysis that is missing from the Preliminary Response. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva 181 F.3d at 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). To be clear, we make no judgment on the propriety of the declarants’ testimony or the cited exhibits at this time. If appropriate, Patent Owner can challenge (1) the admissibility of the exhibits and testimony and (2) specific arguments as going beyond the grounds stated in the Petition during the trial. But simply including a significant amount of testimony and a number of supporting references is not, by itself, a reason to find that the particularly requirement is not met.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenInstituted

    “Having reviewed the arguments and evidence included in the Petition, including the Ranka Declaration, which are not substantively addressed by Patent Owner at this stage (see Prelim. Resp.), we are persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently demonstrates, for purposes of this Decision, that it would have been obvious to combine Merriman and Jaye in the manner set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 30

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,775,249
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00734 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over the combinations of prior art identified in the eight grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 14 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for certain terms concerning the cover material—“a cover formed from a dielectric material,” “a transparent substrate,” and “a cover comprising a non-conductive material”—and window terms such as “defines at least one window” and “window defined.” Pet. 7–10. Patent Owner states that it does not take a position regarding Petitioner’s offered constructions. PO Resp. 15. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 34–35. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 34–35. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 41–45. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 176 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 149 (Dr. Duckworth describing a motivating factor in “Honda’s teaching of a wireless receive coil near a rear opening similar to that taught in Kotanagi (where both Honda’s and Kotanagi’s openings have a cover glass)” and opining that, in the proposed modifications, “the resulting magnetic flux would pass through the cover glass, as taught by Honda”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 54; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 155–156 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “would limit the size and positioning of a charging coil, and that the purported combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would result in a “significantly degrad[ed] wireless charging efficiency” of Honda’s coil. PO Resp. 41–42; see id. at 36–45, id. at 55 (Patent Owner arguing that, “given the size restrictions imposed by Kotanagi,” the housing and cover glass cannot be expanded to allow for a larger coil). Patent Owner further argues that the combination would have to be configured a certain way and that the resulting configuration would “would frustrate Honda’s goals and intended purpose.” Id. at 37–38, 40–41; see also, e.g., id. at 43–44 (Patent Owner arguing that the combination, as characterized by Patent Owner, would inject noise and interference that are contrary to Honda’s goals of quick and efficient power transmission). We do not agree with this line of argument. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The person of ordinary skill in the art is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). As the Supreme Court recognized in KSR, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” 550 U.S. at 421. Dr. Duckworth persuasively testifies that, “if, under the relevant engineering trade-offs, a POSITA wanted to increase charging speed, consistent with Honda’s teachings, Honda would have provided the motivation and information to either re-size or reshape Kotanagi’s protrusion and/or cover glass to provide for a larger coil.” Ex. 1060 ¶ 346; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159 (“[I]t would have been feasible to make the second modification option discussed above: to enlarge Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass, surrounding the LED and PD.”); Ex. 2039, 47:5–10 (“[A] POSITA would view Honda’s teachings to either modify Kotanagi to position wireless charging coil behind Kotanagi’s cover glass or enlarge the Kotanagi’s opening and cover glass to make room for a coil behind the cover glass.”); PO Resp. 44 (Patent Owner admitting that Honda teaches that metal is inferior for power transmission and “[t]his is precisely why Honda seeks to provide glass for its rear cover.”). And, although the references express certain goals, Patent Owner does not adequately identify any disclosure in either reference that disparages Petitioner’s articulated combination. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not ‘criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage’ investigation into the invention claimed.”). Even if, as Patent Owner argues, the proposed combination would not quickly charge the device, this is not dispositive. Dr. Anthony agrees that “[d]evices, depending on their use and their function, can benefit from either fast charge or trickle charge or a little bit of charge.” Ex. 1052, 19:3–6. “It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Intel Corp., 21 F.4th at 800 (quoting PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[J]ust because better alternatives exist in the prior art does not mean that an inferior combination is inapt for obviousness purposes.”); Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). Based upon the final record before us, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider even a slow charging configuration to be a suitable option.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,942,491 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,942,491
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2024 · IPR2023-00634 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 17–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6–8, 11–13, and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We discern no material difference between the parties’ definitions. Cf. PO Resp. 16 (Patent Owner stating that “[t]he analysis presented [in the Response] remains unchanged even if [Petitioner’s proposed] skill level is applied.”). Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We find Patent Owner’s position to be persuasive. Not only are the cover and biosensor module recited separately in the list of components of the device of claim 9, we also agree that the “disposed over” claim language establishes the configuration of two separate components relative to each other. Additionally, the claim language that requires the cover to be “configured to pass optical signals to and from the biosensor module” supports an interpretation where the cover is separate from the biosensor module, otherwise it seemingly would be passing signals to and from itself. The understanding that the cover is separate from the biosensor module in claim 9 is consistent with the Specification’s description of an embodiment that tracks the language of claim 9 and speaks of the two elements as separate, individual components, namely the statement that “[a] biosensor module may be disposed within the opening of the housing” and “[a] rear cover may be disposed over the biosensor module.” Ex. 1001, 2:59–62; see also id. at 2:56 (the same paragraph beginning with “Some embodiments . . .”). Petitioner asserts that its proposed construction is consistent with the claim language, arguing that “the word ‘cover’ naturally suggests that its role is to be ‘disposed over,’” and that “[a] cover can be part of a module just as a clear plastic lid can be both disposed over, and part of, a container, allowing a view of its contents.” Pet. Reply 4. We disagree with Petitioner’s analogy. Although a clear lid may be over a jar, it cannot be said to be “disposed over” the container consisting of both the jar and the lid because it then would be disposed over itself.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Patent Owner argues that the proposed combination will result in a configuration “that is contrary to Honda’s teachings and its stated goals and purpose of achieving quick and efficient wireless charging.” PO Resp. 30– 31. Patent Owner’s focus on these properties is misplaced. We agree with Petitioner that characteristics such as charging speed and efficiency are not claimed. See Pet. Reply 1 (“[T]he ’783 patent does not disclose, let alone claim, sizing or other details [Patent Owner] Apple asserts are necessary for successful wireless charging.”); id. at 6 (“[C]harging speed [is] not claimed.”). Rather, the claim drafter utilized broad language to encompass a biosensor device having the capability to wireless charge through a cover— both good configurations and those that Patent Owner argues are inferior. And, even if the proposed combination does not yield a commercially viable product, as Patent Owner implies, the broad claim scope would hinder an innovating competitor’s ability to utilize and test that purported less desirable combination on the way to development of a better device. Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to make the proposed combination and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success in making that combination. See, e.g., PO Resp. 31. These arguments are not persuasive at least because Patent Owner’s motivation requirement and implied definition of success are not sufficiently tied to the claimed invention. See, e.g., Elekta Ltd. v. ZAP Surgical Sys., Inc., 81 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Reasonable expectation of success refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner would require a successful outcome to be “quick and efficient wireless charging.” See PO Resp. 31. In making these arguments, Patent Owner is improperly superimposing the purported goals and purpose of Honda, the secondary reference, onto the ordinary artisan. See, e.g., id. at 37–41. However, the intended purpose of a prior art reference does not control the obviousness inquiry. Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Our reviewing court recently explained: The [motivation-to-combine] inquiry is not whether a relevant artisan would combine a first reference’s feature with a second reference’s feature to meet requirements of the first reference that are not requirements of the claims at issue. A contrary view would run counter to established principles, including that the claim defines the invention whose obviousness is being assessed and that a skilled artisan may be motivated to combine particular features of different references, e.g., to secure some benefits at the expense of others, even when bodily incorporation would be impossible or inadvisable. Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 73 F.4th 950, 957 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner’s combination yields the benefit of the addition of wireless charging capability to a biosensor device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find that benefit to be a motivating reason to make the combination. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 121 (Dr. Duckworth’s motivation opinion based, in part, on “Kotanagi’s own statement that its rechargeable battery can be recharged ‘in a contactless state.’”); id. ¶ 127 (Dr. Duckworth’s describing a motivating factor in Honda’s explanation “that this [charging] station passes wireless power to the wireless charging receiving coil through a rear cover glass (similar to that of Kotanagi), using the physics of induced currents and magnetic flux.”); see also Ex. 1052, 45:16–46:2 (Dr. Anthony, on cross-examination and after being asked whether wireless charging is an improvement over wired charging for a consumer watch, responding that “in some instances it could be, and in others it may not be.”). And, as to a reasonable expectation of success, Patent Owner admits that “Petitioner has presented a device configuration in which a wireless charging coil could be provided in Kotanagi’s through hole 22.” PO Resp. 56; see also id. at 3 (Patent Owner arguing that “the size of coil that could be provided in this allegedly available space would be small and would significantly limit the amount of wireless power signal transmission,” but not arguing that even Patent Owner’s purported size-limited configuration would be inoperative); see, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–133 (Dr. Duckworth credibly testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Kotanagi and Honda).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,783 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,783
• Masimo Corporation v. Apple Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00664 · APJ Robert L Kinder · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not determined unpatentable because the cited combinations failed to teach or suggest the claimed selectable widget functionality and lacked a coherent rationale to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that: A POSITA [person of ordinary skill in the art] of the ’352 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a discipline related to human-computer interaction, such as Human Factors, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, or an equivalent discipline, and at least two years of experience working with touchscreen user interfaces. More education could substitute for less work experience, and vice-versa. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34).” slip op. at 7

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

    “In our Decision to Institute, we construed “input that is directed to a portion of” a user interface. Paper 8, at 9; see also Pet. 24–25. Because this interpretation is not necessary for our final determination, we do not repeat it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3. Petitioner’s reliance of the testimony of Dr. Rosenberg (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 91) is unpersuasive because Dr. Rosenberg merely restates the Petitioner’s assertions without reliance on persuasive evidence of record. See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, at 5 (Feb 10, 2023) (Vidal, Dir.) (“[T]he Board was correct in giving little weight to Petitioner’s expert because the expert declaration merely offered conclusory assertions without underlying factual support and repeated, verbatim, Petitioner’s conclusory arguments.”). When addressing Chae’s three graphics in Figure 6(b) during cross-examination, Dr. Rosenberg testifies that “[t]hey’re not a numbered element, so they’re not spoken about specifically those three ones”). Ex. 2005, 56:9–14, 54:21–22 (“Chae doesn’t talk about the weather icon”). Further, the final record does not support Dr. Rosenberg’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “part of the well-known functionality of widgets was that selecting a widget would cause ‘display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object.’” Ex. 1003 ¶ 91. None of the references relied upon by Petitioner discloses this alleged “well-known functionality of widgets,” nor does the evidence of record support any industry standard usage of the term widget in the appropriate timeframe. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 46–48. Petitioner has also not persuasively shown that selections of Chae’s SIM card icons result in the display of an application as claimed. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154, Fig. 22; see also Tr. 43:14–17 (“the claimed interface object causes display of the corresponding application, but selection of this paragraph 152, Figure 22 widget causes selection of something different, a sim environment.”). We find Patent Owner’s position more persuasive, when Chae uses the word widget, it is not using that word to refer to something that launches into an application, but instead Chae’s widgets show use-state information related to a SIM environment. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152–154; Tr. 33:3–12. Specifically, Chae discloses “widgets that show use-state information of the first and second SIMs (SIM1 and SIM2),” and “when a user selects one of [the] widgets,” it “unlocks the SIM corresponding to the dragged widget.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 152, 153, Fig. 3 (unlocking SIM displays home screen customized to unlocked SIM). Chae does not support that these widgets relate to the graphic items in its Figure 6(b), nor does Chae explain how its widgets could be understood as the claimed “user interface objects” of the widget screen user interface. As explained persuasively by Dr. Cockburn, “the only widgets that are described in Chae are widgets relating to the use state of the multiple SIM cards,” and “[t]hese widgets described in Chae do not correspond to applications and thus do not cause display of applications when the widgets are selected.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 152).” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Based on the final record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that the combination of prior art teaches the required widget limitation of “a respective user interface object . . . when selected, causes display of an application corresponding to the respective user interface object” as recited in claim 1. Petitioner relies on Chae’s Figure 6(b), which is reproduced below: Chae’s annotated Figure 6(b) “illustrates unlocking the second SIM (SIM2) according to the method for operating a mobile terminal.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 19. Ex. 1005, Fig. 6(b). Although Figure 6(b) “displays different items” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 109) such as the depictions of people (Lauran and Chris) and partly cloudy weather, Chae does not suggest that selecting these graphics causes display of an application. See PO Resp. 21. Petitioner contends that an ordinary artisan would have understood that selecting one of Chae’s graphics items must cause display of an application (see Pet. 55; Pet. Reply 11), but Chae does not teach or suggest this feature. As Dr. Cockburn persuasively testifies, “nothing in Chae indicates that the icons displayed in Figure 6(b) are dynamic or change in any way in response to content in the corresponding applications, and that the icons when selected causes display of the corresponding applications.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 46. The mere possibility that Chae’s generic graphical objects could perform a function is speculation because nothing in Chae teaches that selecting that graphical object would display a corresponding application. See id. The display of icons in Figure 6(b) does not inform the person of ordinary skill in the art whether the item has to indicate or contain content from an underlying application, and also whether it is selectable to get to that corresponding application as required by the claims. See Tr. 32:21–33:3.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,106,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,106,352
• Microsoft Corporation / HP Inc. et al. v. Litl LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00457 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “The parties agreed that resolution of this time bar issue would be resolved in the same manner as in IPR2024-00456. In particular, the parties stipulated: The parties stipulate with respect to the privity time bar issue that the facts and issues in IPR2024-00457 are the same as in IPR2024-00456, so that any decision the Board reaches resolving the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00456 will apply and resolve the privity time bar issue in IPR2024-00457 in the same manner. Notice of Stipulation, Paper 14, 1. In the decision on institution for IPR2024-00456, the Board determined that “Lenovo is not a privity of Microsoft [in this context] and the Petition is not time-barred under § 315(b).” IPR2024-00456, Paper 22, 10 (July 31, 2024). Thus, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the instant petition is also not time-barred.” slip op. at 16

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For this decision, we again construe “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as “referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content.” We again note that this limitation is distinct from merely providing a plurality of ways of displaying content (by, for example, changing display orientation, color, resolution, etc.). Petitioner assumes this construction for the Petition, and Patent Owner assumes this construction for Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Moreover, the construction is well supported by the ’715 patent’s claims and specification for reasons similar to those stated in the prior decision cited by Petitioner. IPR2021-00786, Paper 6, 13–16 (construing this term for the ’715 patent). For this decision, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any other claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties.7 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” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “Below, we explain that we deny institution based on the merits: Petitioner has not shown, with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, a reasonable likelihood of prevailing at trial. In the interest of judicial efficiency, we therefore do not need to consider discretionary denial. Cf. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that the Board is not required to reach issues unnecessary to “resolve the controversy”); see also, e.g., Aylo Freesites Ltd. v. Dish Techs. LLC, IPR 2024-00512, Paper 12, 12, n. 3 (declining to reach the 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) issues when denying based on 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus two years of work experience in designing GUIs for computing devices. Ex-1003, ¶ 21. More education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Id. Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art and the ’715 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,880,715

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.