- Qualcomm Incorporated v. Network System Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00343 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Rădulescu2004 and OCP; the Board did not reach the Weber-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). “[T]he use of the word ‘means’ in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112, para. 6 applies.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “[This] presumption may be rebutted if the properly construed claim limitation itself recites sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1001, 4:46–50. This passage indicates that the interconnect can be a network on a chip and the network on a chip can include wires and buses. That does not necessarily mean that the interconnect can be just wires or buses; rather, it discloses that the interconnect can include wires and buses. In context, the disclosure regarding wires and buses does not support construing the corresponding structure broadly enough to encompass just wires and buses. The networks that constitute the corresponding structure, however, could include networks with wires and buses. Therefore, we agree with Patent Owner that the corresponding structure for the interconnect means should not include a mere bus, switch, and point-to-point wire and instead find that the corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 is a network, which the ’052 patent describes as a multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes. See Ex. 1001, 2:33–37. Because this structure corresponds to the construction of “interconnect means” proposed by Patent Owner and adopted by the district courts in the TI and Qualcomm litigations (see supra Section III.C.3.b), and we do not rely in our analysis below on a recourse to “equivalents thereto” as permitted by § 112 ¶ 6, we note that our ultimate conclusions on the unpatentability of the challenged claims would be the same if § 112 ¶ 6 did not apply. iii. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we construe “interconnect means” to cover the structure described in the Specification corresponding to the specified functions of “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” in the context of claim 6 and “coupling said plurality of processing modules (M, S)” and “enabling a connection-based communication having a set of connection properties” in the context of claims 1 and 7—i.e., a “multi-hop interconnection between modules separated by one or more network nodes”—and equivalents thereof.” slip op. at 28
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“standard as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 7,594,052 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,594,052 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Wipqtus Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00023 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge; the revised contingent motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook. V. CONCLUSION Based on the evidence presented with the Petition, the evidence introduced during the trial, and the parties’ respective arguments, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 9 in the ’339 patent are unpatentable under § 103 because the claims would have been obvious over Chatterjee and Corbridge.12” slip op. at 165
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“testimony, we agree with Petitioner that Chatterjee teaches claim 22’s limitation. See Pet. 58–59; Opp. 17, 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 121, 178–179; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 68, 94; supra § III.D.4(a). Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.D.3(l)(iii), IV.C.4(b)(v).c. Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claim 22 is unpatentable under § 103 because the claim would have been obvious over Chatterjee, Corbridge, and Cook.” slip op. at 165
Patent outcomesUS 10,038,339 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,038,339 - Google LLC v. Wag Acquisition, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01413 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Carmel; the Board did not reach the three alternative obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We observe that Patent Owner cites no intrinsic evidence to support its “clarification” to Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 13. Be that as it may, our analysis would not change if we adopted Patent Owner’s “clarification” to Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art. As Petitioner indicates, Patent Owner’s “clarification” would increase the level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 6; Ex. 2002 ¶ 13. “[I]t is generally easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for the level of skill in the art possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art because it comports with the technology and claims in the ’636 patent and the asserted references and appears reasonable. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“For the foregoing reasons, we are unpersuaded that the intrinsic evidence requires a construction that limits the plain and ordinary meaning of 1[c]–1[c(ii)] as Patent Owner proposes. 4 Referring to Ex. 1001, 8:13–15 (“Once a connection is made to a user’s computer (e.g., user computer 18), server 12 sends the media data to the user computer in the following manner.”) See Ex. 1103, 97:15–17 (referring to 8:15–17 of the ’824 patent). We determine that 1[c]–1[c(ii)] are to be construed broadly, consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, which covers a request specifying “one” serial identifier of the requested “more” elements, which is in line with Petitioner’s construction. See Pet. Reply 6. They do not require pulling every slice subsequent after the requested starting slice. We will apply that construction in analyzing Petitioner’s challenge under the asserted ground.” slip op. at 37
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that Carmel renders obvious the subject matter of claim 1 of the ’636 patent. 3. Independent Claims 5 and 9 Claims 5 and 9, drawn to a “server system” and a “computer program product,” respectively, parallel “method” claim 1 discussed above. Petitioner indicates that claim 5 “presents no material differences from claim 1 in terms of the basic functions it recites.” Pet. 49. “Claim 9 is materially the same as claim 1 except it is written as a computer program product instead of a method.” Id. at 53. Patent Owner does not provide any specific arguments as to these claims. See PO Resp. 36–56. For the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s position that Carmel” slip op. at 59
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Generally, the Board waits until after the oral hearing, when it reviews the record in its entirety, to decide the merits of any motions to exclude. In the Board’s experience, consideration of the objected-to evidence is often unnecessary to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims, and the motion to exclude is moot.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 79–80. Petitioner moves to exclude the following exhibits: 5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. • Ex. 2003 (Declaration of Dr. Henry Houh filed in IPR2022-01228 (Ex. 1002)); • Ex. 2004 (May 23, 2023 Deposition of Dr. Kevin Jeffay filed in IPR2022-01430 and -01433); • Ex. 2008 (In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial Determination (ITC Sept. 9, 2022) (CALJ Clark S. Cheney); and, • Ex. 2009 (In re Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and System Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Evidentiary Hearing - Volume III (ITC March 14, 2022). Mot. Excl. 1–2. Petitioner states, inter alia, that “Exhibits 2003, 2004, and 2009 are a declaration, deposition, and hearing transcript containing testimony of experts not involved in this IPR and from cases not involving [Petitioner].” Id. at 2. Petitioner contends that Mr. Hoarty should not be allowed to rely on any of these exhibits as the bases of his expert testimony. Id. at 2. “Exhibit 2008 is an Initial Determination from the ITC, which should be excluded under FRE 401 as irrelevant.” Id. at 3. We have not relied on any of these exhibits in reaching our decision. Accordingly, we need not determine whether to exclude the challenged material. Therefore, the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot. slip op. at 63
Patent outcomesUS 9,762,636 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,762,636 - Google LLC v. Wag Acquisition, L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01412 · APJ Hubert C Lorin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over Carmel alone; the Board did not reach the alternative Carmel–Ravi and Carmel–Narayan grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“However, a plain reading of 1[e] yields another possibility; that is, a request specifying “one” serial identifier of the requested “more” elements.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have reviewed the record and find Petitioner has the stronger position. The claim does not recite “push” or “pull,” even though the parties agree that 1[e] reflects a “pull” technique (PO Resp. 1; Pet. Reply 1). What the claim recites is “receiving requests at the server system” (i[e]) and “responsive to the requests, sending, by the server system, the one or more media data elements . . . to the requesting user systems corresponding to the requests via one or more data connections over the Internet, for one or more of the media data elements” (1[f]). Petitioner must show that Carmel teaches this claimed technique, not necessarily a “pull” technique as Patent Owner characterizes it. In that regard, Petitioner shows, inter alia, that Carmel teaches that “[r]esponsive to a user input, client 30 selects an appropriate starting slice and begins to download and decode (decompress) files 42, 44, 46, etc.” Ex. 1003, 10:44–47; Pet. 24 (also quoting Ex. 1003, 11:5–7 (“Responsive to the [user] selection, server 36 begins to transmit data slices [to the client 30]”)). This disclosure satisfies the technique that is claimed; that is, “sending, by the server system, the one or more media data elements” “responsive to receiving requests at the server system.”” slip op. at 40
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Generally, the Board waits until after the oral hearing, when it reviews the record in its entirety, to decide the merits of any motions to exclude. In the Board’s experience, consideration of the objected-to evidence is often unnecessary to resolve the patentability of the challenged claims, and the motion to exclude is moot.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 79–80. slip op. at 61
Patent outcomesUS 9,742,824 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,742,824 - The Noco Company, Inc. v. Pilot, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 19, 2024 · IPR2022-01237 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the asserted combinations of Krieger, Richardson, Baxter, Tracey, and Lai.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentDenied
“Having considered the parties’ respective arguments as to whether adverse judgment should be entered against Patent Owner under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) based on an abandonment of the contest by Patent Owner, we have decided not to enter adverse judgment against Patent Owner. In light of Patent Owner’s statement regarding the Petition’s merits and Patent Owner’s statement that it does not request adverse judgment, we do not view Patent Owner’s actions as an abandonment of the contest. See Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., IPR2021-01124, Paper 14 (Dec. 21, 2022) (vacating entry of adverse judgment after determining that it was not sufficiently clear that the patent owner intended to abandon the contest) (precedential); Order Resp. 2–4.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention would have had “at least a Bachelor’s Degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering and at least two years of relevant experience in the design and/or development of automotive electrical systems, or a Masters or more advanced degree in a relevant engineering discipline such as electrical engineering.” Pet. 5. Dr. Wood’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 45. We adopt Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan as consistent with the ’077 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We determine that no claim term requires an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Conclusion About Obviousness for Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, Krieger teaches the invention covered by claim 1. See supra §§ III.D.2(a)–(g). Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Krieger.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 11,124,077 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,124,077 - Tile, Inc. v. Linquet Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 16, 2022 · IPR2021-00927 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable, including as obvious over Teller alone and the listed combinations of Teller with Huang, Yan, Wassingbo, and Thorn.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Considering the subject matter of the ’318 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed proposed definition of the skilled artisan, (a) we apply the level of skill set forth above, which also is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Schmandt (Ex. 1003 ¶ 48); and (b) we determine this would have provided a sufficient level of skill in light of the technology at issue in the ’318 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments noted above, and based on the foregoing disclosures in Teller, we find Teller plainly contemplates that the “monitoring devices” of Teller’s “Peer-to-Peer Lost and Found Network” may include the exemplary “monitoring devices” described in Teller or features thereof, including the “monitoring device” shown in Figure 6. See Tr. 50:24–51:3 (“What we’re relying on in Teller is his disclosure of this lost-and-found feature, and that lost-and-found feature already expressly uses the location component of these monitoring devices. . . . Teller has already combined the proximity requirement with his lost-and-found feature.” (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1004, 42:30–38, 43:15–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 121)); see id. at 49:25–51:24. Thus, by citing to the “monitoring device” with location system 634 in Figure 6, we find Petitioner does not cite to a disparate embodiment relative to the “Peer-to-Peer Lost and Found Network,” but rather to one of various “monitoring device” embodiments plainly contemplated for application as one of the components of that Network. As such, Petitioner need not articulate a reason to combine these particular components and effectively re-do the work already done by Teller (over fifty columns of description).6 See Gen. Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Techs. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (determining that requiring a motivation to combine claim elements present together in a reference “unduly dissects prior art references into collections of individual elements, requiring a party showing obviousness to re-do the work already done in the prior art reference”); see also Pet. 71–72.7” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“Based on our review and weighing of the relevant testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Engels, regarding whether Petitioner relies on disparate embodiments in Teller to satisfy the limitations of claim 1, including the testimony discussed above, we find Mr. Schmandt’s testimony better aligns with Teller’s disclosure as a whole (discussed above), and thus is more credible. See Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Board is “not required to credit [a party’s] expert evidence simply because [the party] offered it”). We also find Mr. Schmandt’s testimony (see, e.g., Ex. 2008, 89:2–90:25) affirms that the “monitoring devices” of Teller’s “Peer-to-Peer Lost and Found Network” may include the exemplary “monitoring devices” described in Teller or features thereof, including the “monitoring device” shown in Figure 6.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,163,318 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,163,318 - Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00662 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over Yamazaki, Schubert, and Tadatomo; the Board did not reach the other asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been knowledgeable regarding conventional designs and fabrication techniques pertaining to LEDs, including LED package designs, and would have had at least 2 years of experience in LED design and fabrication as well as at least a master’s degree in a relevant field (e.g., chemical engineering, materials engineering, or electrical engineering), or alternatively would have an equivalent combination of advanced education and practical experience.” Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 27–29). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We have reviewed Petitioner’s proposal and find it reasonable and consistent with the prior art, and apply it for purposes of this Decision. 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 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Third, and most significantly, Petitioner points to Shimizu, a patent filed in 1999, as repeatedly referring to phosphor as a garnet-based fluorescent material. Reply 3 (citing Pet. 27; Ex. 1013, 10:16–13:50). We agree that Shimizu appears to use the two terms interchangeably. For example, Shimizu states that “[t]he phosphor is specifically garnet fluorescent material” and “the fluorescent material is preferably yttrium- aluminum-garnet fluorescent material (YAG phosphor) activated with cerium.” Ex. 1013, 10:17–30. Patent Owner does not dispute this reading of Shimizu, but argues instead that it is “impermissible to rely on an entirely different reference” in a Reply. See Sur-Reply 4–5 (citing Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). For the same reasons discussed above, we do not agree that Petitioner’s use of Shimizu is improper, but is instead a proper response to Patent Owner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Yamazaki to disclose phosphor. Ariosa, relied upon by Patent Owner, confirms that the Board should consider an exhibit “for what it show[s] about the background knowledge that a skilled artisan would have possessed.” Ariosa, 805 F.3d at 1365 (“The Board’s language on its face supports Ariosa’s interpretation of what the Board meant—that the Board was declining to consider Exhibit 1010, even as evidence of the background understanding of skilled artisans as of January 2010, simply because the brochure had not been identified at the petition stage as one of the pieces of prior art defining a combination for obviousness. If that is what the Board meant, the Board erred. Art can legitimately serve to document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness.”). The Petition relies on Shimizu to show such background understanding. Pet. 27. Specifically, the Petition states that conventional LEDs “were made using the III-nitride material system, with semiconductor layers formed on sapphire substrates and combined with YAG phosphors to efficiently generate white light output.” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 10:30–11:35). Thus, Shimizu is properly objective evidence supporting a finding that at least as early as 1999, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used the terms “phosphor” and “fluorescent material” interchangeably. Moreover, Dr. Schubert’s textbook published in 2018 explicitly references Shimizu. Ex. 1039, 3-4. In this context, we find that Dr. Schubert’s textbook and testimony indicate that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the relevant time, would have understood the terms to be interchangeable.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Based on the complete record, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found the sapphire growth substrate obvious in light of Yamazaki’s disclosure. Petitioner cites Schubert to show an ordinarily skilled artisan’s knowledge about conventional blue LEDs as disclosed in Yamazaki, i.e., that “conventional blue LEDs were III-nitride-based LEDs that commonly included sapphire growth substrates.” See Pet. 71–72, 76–77; Ex. 1007 ¶ 27 (stating the disclosed light-emitting chip “is of a publicly known structure”); Ex. 1008, 166 (discussing “commonly used sapphire and SiC substrates”). We credit Dr. Dupuis’ testimony that is consistent with the prior art of record. Ex. 1035 ¶¶ 238, 248–251 (citing Ex. 1008, 166); Ex. 1007 ¶ 27; Ex. 1009, 1:10–17, 4:61–67; Ex. 1012, 243; Ex. 2013, 10:30–11:35. We are not persuaded otherwise by the deposition testimony of Dr. Dupuis pointed to by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 44 (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7– 12). This testimony confirms that Schubert does not explicitly discuss whether the sapphire growth substrate is included in an LED package. Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 53:7–12). However, Patent Owner does not dispute that sapphire growth substrates were commonly used (as confirmed by Schubert) or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a blue LED to include a sapphire growth substrate. See PO Resp. 42–43 (stating only that sapphire is one among several materials that could be used as a growth substrate); Sur-Reply 9–10 (same). Petitioner is not required to show that the proposed combination would have been preferred over other alternatives. Infineum USA L.P. v. Chevron Oronite Co. LLC, No. 2020-1333, 2022 WL 3147683, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2022) (“We have rejected the notion that a patent challenger seeking to demonstrate obviousness must prove that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select one prior art disclosure over another.”); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art in order to provide motivation for the current invention.”). Instead, the question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the disclosure of Yamazaki, in light of the disclosure in Schubert, to teach or suggest the sapphire growth substrate limitation. As discussed above, persuasive evidence in the record establishes that this is true.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“offered to show that the ’213 patent solved a long-felt, but unresolved need in the field and the merits of the challenged claims. See PO Resp. 67–68. First, Patent Owner has not shown a presumption of nexus because none of the cited evidence involves any particular product. Second, Patent Owner 22 Exhibit 2111 is a redacted version of Exhibit 2105. has not established that the any long-felt need resulted directly from the unique characteristics of the claimed subject matter. Other than a general statement that the technology addressed by the ’213 patent is a continuation of Dr. Nakamura’s prize-winning work (see Ex. 2112 ¶ 231), we see no evidence in the record that the subject matter recited by claims 1 and 2 of the ’213 patent, itself, solved the need for a more efficient LED without a heat sink or mirrors. See PO Resp. 65–66; Sur-Reply 23–24.” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 10,644,213 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,644,213 - Microsoft Corp. v. Royal J. O’BrienAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 25, 2022 · IPR2021-00015 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–12 and 14–20 as obvious over Christiansen and Eylon, with claims 2, 12, and 13 also unpatentable on additional combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Due to Patent Owner’s withdrawal of Exhibits 2132 and 2133, Petitioner’s request to exclude those exhibits is moot. Additionally, we have considered the allegedly improper arguments in the Sur-reply, and they do not undermine Petitioner’s positions. Hence, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude and strike.” slip op. at 140
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“in the Sur-reply properly respond to the arguments in the Reply. See Paper 22, 1, 4–14. Due to Patent Owner’s withdrawal of Exhibits 2132 and 2133, Petitioner’s request to exclude those exhibits is moot. Additionally, we have considered the allegedly improper arguments in the Sur-reply, and they do not undermine Petitioner’s positions. Hence, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude and strike.” slip op. at 140
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsOther
“Alleged Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness (i) Background Before reaching a conclusion about obviousness, we consider” slip op. at 83
Patent outcomesUS 8,380,808 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,380,808
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.