- PTAB · Jan 27, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 on all asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Davis indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr. Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 24 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). We are persuaded, on the present record, that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level reflected by the ’580 patent and the prior art of record. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 2. Similarly, Patent Owner indicates that no formal constructions are necessary at this point in the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 3. We agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly for this Decision. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds to determine whether to institute trial.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner’s alleged motivation for modifying Ramos’ Zlider to be transparent is superficial and conclusory.” Prelim. Resp. 24; see generally Prelim. Resp. 24–26. As noted above, Petitioner relies on evidence from Ording itself and Dr. Cockburn’s testimony that relies on evidence to support its conclusion. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s motivation is insufficient for institution. Patent Owner also argues, relying on Dr. Davis’ declaration testimony, that the Vernier on a semitransparent Zlider widget would be “completely illegible” in some circumstances “rendering the very core of Ramos’ work unusable.” Prelim. Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 88); see Ex. 2001 ¶ 88 (not adding reasoning or evidence beyond that in the Patent Owner Preliminary Response). On this preliminary record, it would appear that when the Zlider widget and the portion of the image underlying the Zlider widget are the same color, the semitransparent Zlider widget may not work as well as when the Zlider widget and the underlying image are different colors. That does not outweigh, for purposes of determining whether to institute trial, the prior art evidence that Petitioner offers of the from Ording and other prior art references on which Dr. Cockburn’s declaration testimony relies. Ex. 1003 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 77, 94, 101; Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 153, 162); see Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option). Petitioner also contends, relying on declaration testimony from Dr. Cockburn, that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 33–34. Petitioner contends that implementing the Zlider widget “described in the Ramos Paper and Ramos Video in a device, as taught by Ording, would have required only routine knowledge well within the skill of a POSITA” and would involve “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable results” described by Petitioner’s proposed combination of the references. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner’s support for reasons one of ordinary skill would have made” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 27, 30, 32, 34, 59, 62, and 64 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion Regarding Asserted Obviousness over Kim In sum, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s showing regarding claim 1 is sufficient for institution. Accordingly, having reviewed the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Kim renders obvious claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Notwithstanding, we address other claims and other grounds below, particularly in response to Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 10 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Surati indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr.Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standards for finding lexicography in a specification are exacting. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As Patent Owner correctly notes, the specification states: In various embodiments, the contact pressure level may be represented by a touch state. In the context of the present description, a touch state refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact pressures. For example, in one embodiment, contact pressure levels may be represented as one of four predefined touch states: no touch, light touch, medium touch, and heavy touch. Ex. 1001, 19:35–41; Prelim. Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:35–41). Patent Owner, however, has not identified any words of manifest exclusion or restriction in that passage that indicate an intent to redefine the claim term. Rather than indicating the claims are to be restricted, the specification indicates how that the term “touch state” is to be understood in the descriptions presented in the specification. Ex. 1001, 19:36–37.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been obvious over Kim and Bowens to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner generally relies on Kim’s description as discussed above. Pet. 62–68. Specifically, in its combination, Petitioner relies on Kim’s hold event and scaling operation for Limitations [1.g and 1.h]. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner additionally relies on Bowen as providing details on recognizing and acting on specific gestures on a user interface. See, e.g., Pet. 55. Petitioner provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 53–62. Petitioner also provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - Netflix, Inc. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-00891 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Comps; the majority finds Comps’s Tracks 1 and 3 example meets the claim limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the prior art and supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30. Dr. Goodrich testifies that “Dr. Bederson and Petitioner offer a slightly different definition of the POSITA, which is similar to my definition” and that his “opinions would not change were” he “to adopt the definition of POSITA offered by Petitioner.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 54. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which is materially the same as Patent Owner’s proposal for purposes of this Final Written Decision, as Dr. Goodrich testifies. 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 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“1. content-related data segments Claim 1 recites “content-related . . . data segments.” Patent Owner construes this phrase as “segments of content data that have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file.” PO Resp. 12. As Patent Owner notes, the ’794 patent specification states that “[t]he term ‘content-related’ is understood to mean that first and second data segments have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file, such as e.g. a plurality of succeeding second data segments represent the speech signal of a specific speaker within a dialog sequence.” Id. at 12–13 (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:9–22); Ex. 1001, 4:9–22 (second emphasis added). The ’794 specification supports Patent Owner’s position that the emphasized sentence essentially defines the term “content-related . . . data segments.” PO Resp. 13–15. However, as Petitioner argues, nothing in the sentence restricts “content-related data segments” to “content” only, for example, “sampled audio,” instead of also including information relating to the content. See Reply 3 (arguing that “the phrase ‘content data’ appears nowhere in the ’794 patent and was not part of the ‘inventors’ express lexicography’ for ‘content-related . . . data segments,’ as P[atent] O[wner] incorrectly contends”). Petitioner points out that Patent Owner’s reliance on the specification refers to “content-related . . . data segments” and “contentbased data segments.” Id. (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1001, 4:9– 22). Petitioner also contends that the specification refers to describing data, contradicting Patent Owner’s position that the data segments must include content. Id. at 7 (“[A]ccording to at least one embodiment of the invention, media data, in particular video or audio data, and/or metadata, in particular encoded according to the XML standard, are described by way of the first and/or second data file.”) (emphasis by Petitioner) (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:4– 10). Moreover, as Petitioner argues, “the word ‘data’ should be given its plain and ordinary meaning,” so that “even if the [unrecited] phrase ‘content data’ is included in the Board’s construction . . . . the term ‘content data’ would include any information relating to the content.” Id. at 4. As noted above, both parties point to the specification’s definition of “content-related . . . data segments”: “The term ‘content-related’ is understood to mean that first and second data segments have a syntactical meaning within the respective data file, such as e.g. a plurality of succeeding second data segments represent the speech signal of a specific speaker within a dialog sequence.” Ex. 1001, 4:9–22. This passage indicates that data segments are content-related or include content, such as a “speech signal,” and that these segments “have a syntactical meaning” with respect to the source of the signal, such as a speaker. See Inst. Dec. 9 & n.8, 17 (observing that “[t]he term ‘content-related’ is somewhat subjective because there is not much guidance in the ’794 patent specification as to what a ‘syntactical meaning’ encompasses”). In context, one plain meaning of the term “syntax” is “[t]he way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences.” Ex. 3002 (THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, 1305 (1976)). However, as indicated above, the ’794 patent refers to video images and audio sounds with a syntactical meaning, showing that it embraces broader subject matter than the plain meaning of “syntax.” Patent Owner’s argument that the ’794 patent refers to “content-” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“segments.’”). Comps supports Petitioner and states that “two syllables represented by the fields TEXT[1] and TEXT[2] must be presented to the user.” Ex. 1004, 3:39–40 (emphasis added). Accordingly, Petitioner persuasively maps each of these text fields to an “associated one of the content-related first data segments [Nf3 and Nf4, respectively] on the basis of an assignment rule [the SYNCH process],” as claim 1 requires.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“1. Claim 6 Petitioner identifies particular passages in Comps and Wan as teaching or suggesting the subject matter additionally recited in claim 6 and provides reasons for combining the teachings. Pet. 50–51. The record supports Petitioner’s showing. See id. Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claim 6. See generally PO Resp. Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence that Comps and Wan render claim 6 unpatentable. 2. Claims 7, 8, and 22 Claim 7 recites “[t]he method as claimed in claim 1, further” slip op. at 68
Patent outcomesUS 8,605,794 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,605,794 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00923 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–28 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Handley, Basturk, and PacketCable; Judge McKone dissented over the printed-publication findings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“broadly, how skilled artisans in the cable industry in 1999 shared information, is not based on her expertise and should not be given any weight. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592, (1993) (“Presumably, this relaxation [in FED. R. EVID. 702] of the usual requirement of firsthand knowledge—a rule which represents ‘a ‘most pervasive manifestation’ of the common law insistence upon ‘the most reliable sources of information,’ ’ is premised on an assumption that the expert’s opinion will have a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline.” (internal citation omitted)); FED. R. EVID. 701 (“If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception.”). I would find that Dr. Hall-Ellis’s opinions are not based either on her expertise or her perception; thus, I would give her opinions no weight. As to matters within her expertise, Dr. Hall-Ellis testified that she searched the Wayback Machine and library cataloging resources (e.g., WorldCat) for PacketCable and did not find it as of December 1, 1999. 25:19–26:8, 36:13–15. She further testified that she has no knowledge of whether or how PacketCable was cataloged, on CableLabs’ website or elsewhere. Id. at 50:5–13, 51:10–52:8. This testimony is credible, as it is within her expertise. Thus, I believe Dr. Hall-Ellis that no sources typically consulted by librarians cataloged or recorded PacketCable in 1999. When her expertise is considered, all Dr. Hall-Ellis has been able to establish is that there is no evidence that PacketCable was stored or cataloged, in 1999, in the places where a librarian was apt to look.” slip op. at 108
- Skill levelOther
“VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artUnpatentable
“Conclusion for Reasons to Combine We agree with Petitioner that Basturk teaches generating signatures “on-the-fly” as transmission proceeds in order to avoid slowing down the regular flow of data. Pet. 11 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12). We agree with Petitioner that Handley’s RTP protocol used for video conferences would benefit from Basturk’s protocol for high speed networks in order to provide secure video conferences as taught by Basturk. Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). We agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Basturk’s technique of computing signatures “on-the-fly” with Handley’s internet conferencing architecture to provide the known benefits of transmitting data faster, reducing jitter, and reducing computing power. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). We agree with Petitioner that Handley describes the need for providing authentication in a multicast environment, and that Basturk addresses this need as well as provides a solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1005, 13; Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). We agree with Petitioner that modifying Handley’s RTP transport protocol to include Basturk’s known authentication method of generating signatures “on-the-fly” while transmitting data is “the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.” Id. at 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70); KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. In addition, we find that Dr. Houh’s testimony supports Petitioner’s reasons to combine Handley and Basturk. As discussed above, we find Dr. Houh’s testimony more persuasive than Dr. Stubblebine’s testimony because Dr. Houh’s testimony is supported by and consistent with the disclosures of Basturk and Handley. Dr. Houh testifies that generating a signature “on-the-fly” as data is being transmitted provides the benefits of transmitting data faster, reducing jitter, reducing computing power, and reducing latency in a live transmission. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64. We agree with Dr. Houh and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art, faced with the need to provide a signature at the application layer in Handley’s multimedia conferencing architecture as taught by Handley (Ex. 1005, 2, 13) while minimizing latency as taught by both Handley (Ex. 1005, 13–14) and Basturk (Ex. 1006, 7, 12), would have computed the signature “on-the-fly” as taught by Basturk (Ex. 1006, 7, 12) at the application layer of Handley to yield the benefits of authenticating data while minimizing latency as taught by Basturk. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–70. Dr. Houh testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art, in order to” slip op. at 40
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for patent owner
“Handley, Ex. 1005, qualifies as a prior art printed publication. I also disagree that Petitioner has shown that PacketCable qualifies as a prior art printed publication. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any claim of the ’682 is unpatentable. Accordingly, I dissent.” slip op. at 92
Patent outcomesUS 7,266,682 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,266,682 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Instagram, Inc. et al. v. VL Collective IP LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00924 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhao; claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“Decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 as to the patentability of claims 1–16 of the ’980 patent. We determine Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–15 are unpatentable, and Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyOther
“being present in another image or comparing that probability to a detection threshold.”). Dr. Saber was consistent with this testimony on cross-examination. Ex. 1051, 167–251. When I weigh the evidence, I find it to be one-sided, with all of the expert testimony weighing against Petitioner or avoiding the issue altogether. Thus, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Zhao teaches claim limitation 1e. Moreover, even if the Majority is correct about how Zhao’s RCR algorithm works, all that shows is that the detection of object presence in a previous image can be used to disambiguate segments (e.g., limbs) of an already detected object (e.g., a person), not that it can be used to detect the object in the image in the first place, as required by the claim language. For this additional reason, I would not find that Petitioner has met its burden.” slip op. at 84
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Reasons for Obviousness Based on Zhao On a limitation-by-limitation basis, Petitioner’s contentions of “obviousness” are primarily assertions of how a POSITA would have understood Zhao’s disclosures. For example, with regard to claim 1, Petitioner repeatedly asserts how “a POSITA would have understood Zhao” (Pet. 13, 18, 21, 27) and for each limitation contends that Zhao “disclosed or at least rendered obvious” (or a variation thereof) the limitation (id. at 13– 15, 17–18, 21, 23, 25–27). We will, accordingly, address these “obviousness” contentions when addressing the respective limitations.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 7,436,980 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,436,980 - PTAB · Nov 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Sturman and Ho.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“(“Decision Denying Institution” or “DDI”). Petitioner filed a request for Director Review and the Director vacated and remanded our Decision Denying Institution. Paper 11 (Petitioner’s Request for Director Review); Paper 12 (“Remand Dec.” or “Remand Decision”). Specifically, the Director directed that we: shall issue a new decision on institution resolving the claim construction of “a non-promotional background object.” Consistent with Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary. See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Slyde Analytics, LLC, IPR2024-00040, Paper 14 at 7–8 (Vidal Aug. 2, 2024) (discussing the Phillips framework). The Board shall consider all remaining necessary issues, and determine whether to institute trial consistent with this decision. Id. at 7–8 (footnote omitted).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Based on the current record, there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in demonstrating that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious in view of Sturman and Ho. 4. Analysis of Claims 2–10 Because Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’089 patent is unpatentable, we institute on all grounds and all claims raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, it is not necessary for us to provide an assessment of every challenge raised by Petitioner, especially, as in this case, when Patent Owner does not separately argue those claims. See Prelim. Resp. 26–36. Those challenges, in our view, are best left for trial after full development of the record.” slip op. at 42
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“draws a distinction between foreground and background objects. Specifically, the prosecution history makes it clear that foreground objects are “in the forefront of the game play as primary objects to be manipulated or used during game play” and that background objects are “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components.” Ex. 1002, 85. However, whether an object is “outside the primary focus of game play and as unexpectedly interactive components” is based solely on the subjective perspective of the user. That is, what one user may consider a primary focus or expected object, another might consider outside the primary focus and unexpected. As the Director made clear in the Remand Decision, it is “improper[]” to have a claim construction “based on the subjective perspective of a user.” Remand Dec. 7; see also Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“We are not prepared to assign a meaning to a patent claim that depends on the state of mind of the accused infringer.”). Accordingly, we cannot and do not adopt that as our construction of the term background. Not finding a construction of “background” based on the intrinsic evidence, we turn to the extrinsic evidence. See Remand Dec. 7 (“[T]he Board should resolve the proper meaning of that term by first assessing the intrinsic evidence, and then consulting extrinsic evidence if necessary.” (emphasis added)). Specifically, as part of the Decision Denying Institution, we considered various dictionary definitions of the word “background.” According to those definitions, “background” refers to “[t]he part of a pictorial representation that appears to be in the distance and that provides relief for the principal objects in the foreground.” Ex. 3002 (AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY); see also Ex. 3003 (“the scenery or ground behind something,” “the part of a painting representing what lies behind objects in the foreground”) (MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY). Consistent with those dictionary definitions, we construe the term “background” to mean the part of a pictorial representation that is not in the foreground. The prosecution history provides more useful guidance as to what a “non-promotional” object is. As the applicant argued in the Amendment discussed above, a non-promotional object is one “which does not have an ‘area’ in which advertisements directly appear, but instead represents a ‘hot spot’ that, upon activation, causes ‘hidden promotional content’ to then appear.” Ex. 1002, 85–86. In other words, a non-promotional object does not display a promotional message unless the hotspot is activated. This understanding of the meaning of non-promotional is consistent with an earlier argument (Ex. 1002, 113–25) the applicant made during the prosecution of the ’089 patent.12 At that time, the applicant argued: In an exemplary embodiment, the location in-game may be represented by a non-promotional object, such as a blank chalk board depicted in the background of the gaming environment. See Applicant’s Specification at ¶ [0045]. Upon activating the hot spot (e.g., by throwing a dart at the chalk board), a promotional message may be drawn on the chalk board and displayed to the user. See id. In other words, Applicant’s amended claims 15 and 22, inter alia, may present promotional content once the game user activates, unknowingly, a “hot spot” associated with a non-promotional object—the non-promotional object is not an ordinary or visible place for advertisement, the 12 This argument was made on December 2, 2011, which is prior to the amendment adding the term background on July 15, 2013. Compare Ex. 1002, 117 (then pending claim 15 without the word “background”) with id. at 80 (amendment adding “background” to claim 15). user does not know that the object has a hidden hot spot, and the user does not know that activating the hidden “hot spot” will display promotional content. Ex. 1002, 122 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“Moreover, even if we did consider only the specific references addressed in the Preliminary Response, we would not reach a different outcome. Patent Owner focuses on a high-level comparison of the references. See Prelim. Resp. 13–19. Such high-levels of similarity are to be expected as all of the references involve advertising in computer game programs. But such high-level similarity is not sufficient. See Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC, IPR2021-01445, Paper 15 at 16 (PTAB March 2, 2022) (Institution Decision) (“The issue is not just whether the same elements can be found in each of the references, but whether the elements function the same way. That is, even though Leong and Bates have the same elements, that does not mean that the elements interact with each other the same way or perform the same functions as recited in the claims.”); see also Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 15 (holding that prior art is substantially the same if “Petitioner relies on [the new art] in substantially the same manner as the Examiner cited [the previous art] during prosecution such that [the new art] discloses substantially the same information as [the previous art] in relevant part.”); Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Alexander Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 28, 2024) (Vidal) (determining the Board erred when “rather than identify material, substantive overlap between the arguments presented in the Petitions and those previously presented to the Office, the Board’s analysis relied on its discussion of high-level similarities but lacked detailed reasoning”); Wolfspeed, Inc. v . The Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7 (PTAB Mar. 30, 2023) (Vidal) (vacating the Board’s decision when the “analysis of the first part of the Advanced Bionics framework did not consider sufficiently the material differences between” the art the Office previously considered and the art the Petition cited). Nor were any of Petitioner’s Reply arguments improper. We expressly authorized Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s arguments that the prior art relied on in the Petition was substantially the same as prior art that was considered. Ex. 3005 (Email from the Board to the parties) (“Petitioner is authorized to file a preliminary reply brief addressing 1) Patent Owner’s arguments under 35 U.S.C. 325(d). . . .”). Moreover, given the facts of this proceeding, it is not reasonable to require Petitioner to anticipate “substantially the same prior art” arguments and address them in the Petition. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is a proper reply argument. 3. Conclusion Based on our consideration of Becton Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d), we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Thus, our analysis ends at this point, and we need not proceed to part two of the Advanced Bionics framework. See Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089 - General Motors LLC v. Edward H. NortrupAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00994 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Knockeart and Feldman, with dependent claims also held obvious over additional combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“the proposed alternative configuration. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Also, protecting the privacy of individuals provides further reason for combining Knockeart and Feldman. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–7, 9, 10, 12–21, 25, 26, 29, and 31 would have been obvious over Knockeart and Feldman, that claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Simske, that claims 10, 11, and 30 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Whitsell, that claims 22–24 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Boies, and that claims 27 and 28 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, and Peterson. See supra Parts III.B–III.F. Because these five asserted challenges are dispositive as to all the challenged claims, namely, claims 1–31, we need not reach either the asserted challenge based on Knockeart, Feldman, Boies, and Peterson, or the asserted challenge based on Knockeart, Feldman, and Craine with respect to any of these claims. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359 (2018) (holding that a petitioner “is entitled to a final written decision addressing all of the claims it has challenged”); Bos. Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Grp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (nonprecedential) (recognizing that the “Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding” and agreeing that the Board has “discretion to decline to decide additional instituted grounds once the petitioner has prevailed on all its challenged claims”). Accordingly, we do not reach Petitioner’s arguments that claim 14 would have been obvious over Knockeart, Feldman, Boies, and” slip op. at 80
Patent outcomesUS 10,444,028 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,444,028 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00697 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8 were not proven unpatentable: Rauhala does not disclose the required simultaneous signal-strength determinations, and Masaaki does not cure the deficiency for claim 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Following institution, Patent Owner maintained the same level of ordinary skill proposed in its preliminary response and did not address our discussion of the level of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 24–25; see also Prelim. Resp. 24. For the reasons discussed in the Institution Decision, we adopt and apply for this Decision the level of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. See Dec. 8–10. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’825 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27– 31. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the desired signal and interferer signal must be received at the same time. The plain language of the claim requires the wireless transceiver to “receiv[e] a wireless signal having a desired signal and an interferer signal,” the determining of a signal strength of the interferer signal and the determining of a signal strength of the desired signal must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. The specification supports this understanding. “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:20–22; see also id. at 5:31–33 (“FIGS. 2A and 2B illustrate examples of desired signals, interferers, and noise that may be received by one of the various circuits in a” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Rauhala does not state that the signal strengths are measured simultaneously or at the same time. Indeed, as discussed above, Rauhala indicates unequivocally in the same paragraph the opposite—that detector DET provides to control unit 42 “an indication about either the receive channel signal strength RSS or the strength of any signal on the reception band.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 17. Rauhala describes that “control unit 42 provides two one-bit control signals cA and cM” based on indications received from detector DET. Id. Importantly, Rauhala indicates that “at the same time as” describes how the control unit 42 uses the received inputs RSS and RSSn shown in Figure 4, which are described earlier in paragraph 17 as indications of either RSS or RSSn from detector DET. Id. (“Signal cA is 0 when signal RSS is greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the 11 Dr. Baker’s reply declaration correctly quotes Rauhala paragraph 17 but cites to paragraph 18. We deem this harmless error. same time smaller than Sn. . . . Signal cM is 1 when signal RSS is not greater than S4 and signal RSSn is at the same time at least Sn. Otherwise, signal cM is 0.”). The burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rauhala discloses the disputed limitations as arranged or combined in the claim. Petitioner does not persuasively reconcile these “either/or” statements regarding the functioning of detector DET with the “at the same time as” statements regarding control signals output by control unit 42 in paragraph 17. We do not find persuasive Petitioner counsel’s position expressed at the hearing that Rauhala’s “either/or” statements are “simply an imprecise description” (Tr. 16:22–24). We do not see a lack of precision in Rauhala’s “either/or” statements.” slip op. at 30
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“When asked at his deposition to explain Rauhala’s use of the word “or” regarding the functioning of detector DET, Dr. Baker asserted that “[detectors] can be designed to determine RSS or RSSn.” Ex. 2016, 85:5– 12. We find Dr. Baker’s testimony that “it’s reasonable that if you can design . . . the detector to detect one or the other, you can also design it to detect both” to be without factual support. Id. at 85:13–16. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence to support that would have led one of ordinary skill to design such a detector or to support that one of ordinary skill would have understood Rauhala’s detector to be so designed. Furthermore, Dr. Baker recognizes that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. We give little weight to Dr. Baker’s unsupported testimony that one could design a detector to detect both RSS and RSSn from the same wireless signal. See 37 C.F.R. 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (Director affirming because “the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight”).” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,129,825 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,129,825 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 16, 2024 · IPR2023-00698 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–11, 13, and 19–21 were not shown unpatentable because Rauhala does not disclose simultaneous desired and interferer signal-strength determinations, defeating anticipation and the obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we were persuaded, on the preliminary record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals were consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’202 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, we determined that Petitioner’s proposal was a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we therefore adopted it for our Institution Decision. See Institution Dec. 12–13. For this Decision, we adopt the description of the person of ordinary skill articulated by Petitioner and used previously in our Institution Decision. In light of our review of the complete record, we find that this formulation is consistent with the ’202 patent, the prior art of record, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker. See Baker I Decl. ¶¶ 28–32. Our Decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“85:13–16. He admits that “Rauhala doesn’t teach the details of what’s in the detector.” Id. at 91:6–7. He points to no textbook or other independent evidence that would have led a person of ordinary skill to design such a detector. Our Trial Practice Guide cautions against crediting such unsupported testimony: The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data. Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (Nov. 2019).7 We therefore give Dr, Baker’s unsupported testimony on this issue little weight.” slip op. at 24
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe these terms to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“requirement.” Pet. Reply 5. We do not agree with Petitioner. We find that the language of the claims supports Patent Owner’s argument that the desired signal and the interferer signal are received together. As discussed infra, claim limitations 7.7 and 7.8 recite determining a signal strength of the interferer signal and determining a signal strength of the desired signal. These determinations must be performed at the same time; otherwise, the determinations of signal strengths would not be of the same wireless signal. See Larson II Decl. ¶ 70; Baker II Decl. ¶¶ 48–49 (explaining that consideration of signal strengths detected at the same time would be “essential”). The specification of the ’202 patent further supports this finding: “When a receiver is actively receiving a desired signal, each block in the signal path has at its input the desired signal as well as noise and possibly interfering signals.” Ex. 1001, 5:22–24; see also Figs. 2A, 2B (showing interferer signals and desired signals together).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,202
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.