- PTAB · Aug 14, 2024 · IPR2024-00207 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–25, 38, and 39 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Motorola would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’249 patent and all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“The mixing operation described in Botha appears materially different than that described in Löppönen. The Office acknowledged in allowing the ’249 patent that in Löppönen’s mixed stream, “the user still hears only one group at a time.” Ex. 1003 at 32, 76–77. That does not appear to be the case in Botha. In Botha, the combination of a variety of audio streams [occurs] in such a way that each participant will hear all other participants’ voices except their own. This is known as an ‘N minus l’ mix- where ‘N’ represents the sum of all audio streams entering a[t] the core logic of the invention, and the ‘minus l’ portion refers to the subtraction of the current participant’s stream from the stream returned to them. Ex. 1004, 10:35–43. 3. Conclusion Based on the current record before us, we determine that Petitioner is not asserting the same or substantially the same art or arguments previously presented to the Office with respect to Botha (Ground 1). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).3 E. Prior Art References” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: would have had at least a B.S. degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus approximately three years of industry in networking or communication systems, in particular address interoperability between different types of networks and satellite communications. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Patent Owner “does not dispute the proposal provided by Petitioner as to who would qualify as a POSITA.” Prelim. Resp. 6. pre-AIA law applies. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we cite to pre-AIA § 103(a). We regard Petitioner’s definition as consistent with the ’249 patent and the asserted prior art, and the definition is supported by the testimonial evidence. Therefore, for the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We agree with Petitioner that we can determine whether to institute trial without having to resolve Petitioner’s assertion of indefiniteness. See Samsung, 948 F.3d 1355 (question of indefiniteness “is simply another ground on which the claims might be challenged in an appropriate forum,” and “does not necessarily preclude the Board from addressing the patentability of the claims on section 102 and 103 grounds”). Independent claim 25 is directed to a system for providing a push-to- talk proxy media service, reciting a “means for receiving,” a “means for mixing,” and a “means for transmitting,” among other things. Ex. 1001, 25:51–64. Petitioner identifies the recited functions and provides corresponding structures for these “means for” limitations recited by claim 25 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner “maintains that the proposed constructions for these three claim terms are overly limiting since the specification provides support for a broader range of structures, at the least, and does not concede to the constructions provided by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 6. It is not necessary for us to resolve the claim construction issues identified by the parties in order for us to determine whether to institute inter partes review of the ’249 patent. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision and based upon the preliminary record, we decline to expressly construe any of the claim terms at this point in the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This preliminary Decision, however, does not prevent the parties from proposing, presenting evidence, or arguing a same or different construction of the claims during trial. The parties are encouraged to present their claim construction arguments and evidence as permitted by our rules.2 A final claim construction will be determined after the close of all the evidence and after any oral hearing in this matter. D. Discretionary Denial – 325(d)” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,145,249 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00511 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Shaffer-Keller obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’949 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Other
“below, we agree with Petitioner on this record that the ’852 patent claims lack priority to the parent application, Shaffer. For example, paragraph 34 of the ’299 application11 resulting in the ’852 patent explains that “IS 102 (FIG. 1) can determine if the endpoint 104 adheres to the rules of transmission.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 34. This paragraph does not state that any other device (such as the endpoint itself) receives a determination from the IS that the endpoint does not adhere to the rules of transmission. Figure 7, reproduced below, is similarly devoid of any such description: 11 U.S. App. No. 14/523,299 (Ex. 1004). The specification describes Figure 7 as “an example methodology that can facilitate dynamic communication between non-compatible communication devices.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 55. The specification further explains that “if the device demonstrates that it cannot comply with the behavioral characteristics of the interoperability system, the device can be attached to a VTG [virtual talk group] via a proxy,” in blocks 710 and 714 of Figure 7. Id. ¶ 56. But the ’299 application does not explain that this lack of compliance is communicated to any device, such as an endpoint.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner also sets forth a rationale to combine Shaffer and Keller. Id. at 33–34. For example, Petitioner argues that Shaffer’s goal was to provide a way for incompatible endpoints to work using “standards-based IP technologies,” and Keller’s SIP protocol is an established “standards-based IP technolog[y]” for signaling in PTT. Id. at 33 (citing Ex. 1016 ¶ 2; Ex. 1002 ¶ 155). Petitioner asserts that a POSITA would have looked for an example of such a system, such as Keller’s SIP-based system, for a PTT system as in Shaffer. Id. at 33–34. Combining these systems therefore 15 This appears to be a typographical error, as Petitioner appears to be quoting Ex. 1024 ¶ 122. “would have been seen by a POSITA as nothing more than a combination of known elements according to their established functions to achieve an expected result, and would been considered to constitute nothing more than a routine engineering task that was well within the skill level of a POSITA,” Petitioner argues. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 155). On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Shaffer and Keller discloses limitation [1c] and determine that Petitioner articulates a sufficient rationale to combine these references.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a bachelors’ degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field, plus approximately three years of industry in networking or communication systems, in particular address interoperability between different types of networks and satellite communications,” and that “[a]dditional education in the fields of electrical engineering or computer science, such as a masters or doctorate degree, could substitute for professional experience in the field.” Pet. 14–15. Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. Prelim. Resp. 7. Based on the current record, we accept Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’852 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,319,852 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00479 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 8–11 were obvious over Choksi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). slip op. at 5
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that “the Petition ignores that the proxy is ‘dynamically inserted to connect . . . the endpoint to a virtual talk group.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s argument fails because the 5 Elsewhere, Petitioner mentions “virtual talk group” in the context of the recited “rules of transmission” (Pet. 27) and trusted endpoint identity (Pet. 30), but neither of these passages provides an explanation of how Choksi discloses “receive a first determination from the IS . . . that a proxy is to be dynamically inserted to connect the endpoint to a virtual talk group.” Petition provides no explanation as to what constitutes claim 1’s “virtual talk group” in Choksi, let alone that Choksi teaches “that a proxy is to be dynamically inserted to connect the endpoint to a virtual talk group” as claimed. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Choksi’s signaling bridge is a dynamically inserted proxy, Petitioner does not explain how the signaling bridge “connect[s] the endpoint to a virtual talk group.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that “the Petition ignores that the proxy is ‘dynamically inserted to connect . . . the endpoint to a virtual talk group.” Prelim. Resp. 17. Petitioner’s argument fails because the 5 Elsewhere, Petitioner mentions “virtual talk group” in the context of the recited “rules of transmission” (Pet. 27) and trusted endpoint identity (Pet. 30), but neither of these passages provides an explanation of how Choksi discloses “receive a first determination from the IS . . . that a proxy is to be dynamically inserted to connect the endpoint to a virtual talk group.” Petition provides no explanation as to what constitutes claim 1’s “virtual talk group” in Choksi, let alone that Choksi teaches “that a proxy is to be dynamically inserted to connect the endpoint to a virtual talk group” as claimed. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that Choksi’s signaling bridge is a dynamically inserted proxy, Petitioner does not explain how the signaling bridge “connect[s] the endpoint to a virtual talk group.”” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,319,852 - PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00595 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all grounds; Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, including obviousness over Pierre and Gershman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“Advanced Bionics Part 2 We also consider whether Petitioner has demonstrated the Office erred “in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. “An example of a material error may include misapprehending or overlooking specific teachings of the relevant prior art where those teachings impact patentability of the challenged claims.” Id. at 8 n.9; see also NPRM at 28700 (“material error may include misapprehending or overlooking clear, specific evidence in the prior record, including teachings of the relevant prior art that impact the patentability of the challenged claim”). We evaluate Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated material error. Id. at 10. Those factors are: (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. According to our precedent, “if the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under [Becton, Dickinson] factors (e) and (f).” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10; see also Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01421, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2023) (Director Review vacating Board decision denying institution, finding examiner misapprehended or overlooked prior Board determinations regarding same references in related IPR). In evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c) and (e), we determine Petitioner has shown the Examiner erred by overlooking Gershman’s teaching of a “moving plate” and digital image capture of an unrestrained chick as a disclosure of the “unrestrained chick” limitation. More particularly, the record evidence at this stage of the proceeding indicates the Examiner did not meaningfully consider Gershman’s disclosure: (i) of Figure 3, showing a chick on a “moving plate,” (ii) of Figures 5 and 6, digital images of a chick “reflexively” opening its wings without restraint for image capture, or (iii) that it would have been “obvious” to “adapt[]” and “add” the “moving plate” system to the “end” of industrial chick processing lines. Pet. 10, 22, 36–37 (compare Ex. 1002, 220–221, 226–228 with Ex. 1003, 1, 2, 5, 6, 10). Regarding Becton, Dickinson factor (f), the Petition presents additional evidence and facts, including material teachings of the new Pierre reference regarding the “unrestrained chick” limitation as detailed in Part 1 above, that warrant inter partes review.” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’124 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–18 of the ’124 patent on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“unrestrained chick” limitation in independent claims 1 and 6. Pet. 36–37, 39–40. Petitioner emphasizes Pierre’s teaching of placing a chick in a position where it is falling so that it will open its wings “naturally” for image capture by a digital camera. Id. at 36, 39 (citing Ex. 1004, 4). Petitioner argues it would have been obvious to use Gershman’s moving plate to cause a chick to fall and “reflexively” open it wings for image capture as in Pierre, “because both Pierre and Gershman are in the same field and directed to solving the same problem, namely, automating assessment of chicks by imaging their wings.” Id. at 37, 39–40. Patent Owner does not address the argument. See Prelim. Resp. 12–15. On the present record, we agree with Petitioner’s reliance on Pierre-Gershman and also refer to our analysis of Ground 1 and the teaching of Gershman’s “moving plate” as a disclosure of the “unrestrained chick” limitation. On the present record, Petitioner’s argument and evidence support the position that Pierre and Gershman are analogous art and the proposed combination of Pierre-Gershman teaches the “unrestrained chick” limitation. slip op. at 24
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,806,124 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01399 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against ALD Social, LLC on claims 1–16 of the ’158 patent and terminated IPR2023-01399 after finding Patent Owner unequivocally abandoned the contest.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, and abandonment of the contest is construed by the Board to be a request for adverse judgment. See IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)). Our orders also stated: Under the specific circumstances of this case, we determine Patent Owner’s failure to file long-overdue mandatory notices required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) to demonstrate Patent Owner’s abandonment of the contest. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c), in the particular circumstances of this case, and in the interests of justice, we set a deadline for Patent Owner to file mandatory notices pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) no later than June 10, 2024. IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4 (emphasis in original); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4 (emphasis in original). Our orders further explained that we “would view, in the particular circumstances of this case, Patent Owner’s filing of mandatory notices by the deadline as an indication that Patent Owner had not abandoned the contest.” IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4; IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,402,158 - Apple Inc. v. Ald Social, LLCAdverse judgmentPTAB · Jul 23, 2024 · IPR2023-01398 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Adverse judgment
The Board entered adverse judgment against ALD Social, LLC on claims 1–14 of the ’054 patent and terminated IPR2023-01398 after finding unequivocal abandonment.
RulingsAdverse judgment- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted
“judgment against itself at any time during a proceeding, and abandonment of the contest is construed by the Board to be a request for adverse judgment. See IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 3 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)). Our orders also stated: Under the specific circumstances of this case, we determine Patent Owner’s failure to file long-overdue mandatory notices required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) to demonstrate Patent Owner’s abandonment of the contest. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c), in the particular circumstances of this case, and in the interests of justice, we set a deadline for Patent Owner to file mandatory notices pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2) no later than June 10, 2024. IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4 (emphasis in original); IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4 (emphasis in original). Our orders further explained that we “would view, in the particular circumstances of this case, Patent Owner’s filing of mandatory notices by the deadline as an indication that Patent Owner had not abandoned the contest.” IPR2023-01398, Paper 8, 4; IPR2023-01399, Paper 7, 4.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 9,198,054 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87
- Strike new argumentDenied
“comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part
“surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,483,448 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - Databricks, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00659 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Pike, Pike with Chowdhuri, or Pike with Chowdhuri and MacLeod rendered claims 1–46 obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359– 60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’610 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–46 of the ’610 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on conclusory reasoning grounded in hindsight to assert a POSITA would have found it obvious to include file names to identify the data in each of Pike’s input files “because it would have allowed for locating that data group in Pike’s system and understanding the data in that file.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 93).13 Petitioner then makes the leap that, by understanding the data in an input file, a MapReduce programmer would have had reason “to identify input files and write ‘application-specific’ map and reduce functions on those files.” Id. at 18–19 (citing Ex. 1002, 10:1–7, 11:28–47, 14:12–27; Ex. 1005 ¶ 93). The difficulty with Petitioner’s position is that neither Pike nor other cited references disclose, teach, suggest, or otherwise provide motivation to write application-specific map and reduce functions that process each input file by identifiable schema or data type, i.e., by “data group” as recited in claim 1. Pike teaches application-specific programming “to process the input data one record at a time” or “to generate its output data in the form of key/value pairs,” nothing more. Ex. 1002, 7:31–36; see Pet. 29 (citing same); Prelim. Resp. 40–41, 50–51, 56 (citing same). Petitioner’s posited file names for Pike’s input files, moreover, could not serve as the claimed “data group” mechanism to identify the data in each input file by schema (or data type) for separate map and reduce processing. Each of Pike’s 13 Linn Declaration paragraph 93 is substantially identical to Petitioner’s argument and does not add any further insight or analysis on this point. data blocks can include data from more than one input file, a portion of one input file, or an entire input file. Ex. 1002, 6:55–7:6; see also Prelim. Resp. 47 (“Pike’s ‘data blocks’ (purported ‘partitions’) can be entire ‘input files,’ parts of ‘input files,’ or parts of multiple ‘input files’”). Therefore, a file name for one input file could not uniquely identify all of the data within a given data block, which could include data from different input files. Id. We agree with Patent Owner’s reasoning and argument on this point as well. In sum, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that a POSITA would have had reason or motivation to use input file names in Pike as “data group” identifiers, as recited in claim 1 of the ’610 patent. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (obviousness requires “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable
“We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s asserted motivation for tracking processed data “derived from a particular [input] file” to improve efficiency “by enabling a data set to be selectively reduced after it is mapped” (Pet. 35–36 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 119)), is speculative hindsight-based reasoning. Petitioner’s posited motivation is grounded in benefits residing in the ’610 patent, not in the prior art or knowledge of a POSITA. Prelim. Resp. 48. Petitioner’s evidence—Dr. Linn’s naked opinion that a POSITA “could” have used the identification of processed output file data as “derived from a particular file” to selectively reduce intermediate data (Ex. 1005 ¶ 119)—is unpersuasive for the reasons given above and legally insufficient. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge to the patentability of any of claims 1–46 of the ’610 patent. Therefore, we deny institution of inter partes review of the challenged claims. We need not address Patent Owner’s argument for discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in view of our decision denying institution on the merits.” slip op. at 50
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,190,610
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.