- Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Aug 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00442 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims, 1–20.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“May 22, 2025, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–20 of the ’154 patent. Ex. 2001. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,627,154 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00441 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims 1–34.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“22, 2025, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–34 of the ’798 patent. Ex. 2001. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–34.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“22, 2025, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–34 of the ’798 patent. Ex. 2001. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–34. III. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to the challenged claims of the ʼ798 patent; and FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 11,868,798 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00069 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show that the prior art teaches creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, as claims 1–18 and 21–23 require.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314, 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.” Upon consideration of the Petition in view of the present record and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review on the grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification describes only fingerprint creation outside the virtual machine monitor because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. See Sur-reply 1– 2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner does not contest that Capalik’s fingerprint generation occurs outside the components that Petitioner identifies as the claimed virtual machine monitor. Reply 1–3; see Pet. 18–23 (mapping Capalik’s hypervisor kernel 516 to the claimed virtual machine monitor); id. at 30–31 (mapping Capalik’s processing module 508 and signature generation engine 530 to the claimed fingerprint creation); see also Prelim. Resp. 21–23 (explaining Petitioner’s mapping). Instead, Petitioner asserts that the at-issue claim language—“at the virtual machine monitor”—does not require “that each of the subsequently recited steps must be performed by or in the [virtual machine monitor],” but instead only requires “that the fingerprint is generated by the same decoy system that contains the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2. Petitioner argues that the intrinsic record supports its position because “[n]owhere in the ’697 Patent is there any teaching or suggestion that a [virtual machine monitor] creates a fingerprint/signature indicative of attack activity,” and instead, “[t]he ’697 Patent teaches that its signature generation engine is separate from the [virtual machine monitor].” Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:12–19). In addition, Petitioner asserts that requiring fingerprint creation at the virtual machine monitor “directly” slip op. at 8
- Adverse judgmentOther
“D. Statutory Disclaimer and Remaining Challenged Claims The Petition challenges claims 1–23. Pet. 10. However, because Patent Owner disclaimed claims 19 and 20 (Ex. 2010), the remaining challenged claims are 1–18 and 21–23. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (2020) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”). Of the remaining challenged claims, only claim 1 is independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:” slip op. at 4
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00095 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–18, so no trial could be instituted on them.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Based on our review of Exhibit 2002 and the USPTO’s public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1–18 of the ’855 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of April 24, 2025. Ex. 2002. Because we cannot institute an IPR based on disclaimed claims and all of the challenged claims of the ’855 patent have been disclaimed, no trial will be instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (Decision” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,637,855 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00093 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–20, leaving no claims on which to institute IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Based on our review of Exhibit 2002 and the USPTO’s public records, we conclude that a disclaimer of claims 1–20 of the ’257 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 253(a) has been recorded in the Office as of April 24, 2025. Ex. 2002. Because we cannot institute an IPR based on disclaimed claims and all of the challenged claims of the ’257 patent have been disclaimed, no trial will be instituted. See Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (Decision” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 11,582,257 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2025-00092 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Orca disclaimed all challenged claims 1–19 before institution.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e), “[t]he patent owner may file a statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. 253(a) in compliance with § 1.321(a) of this chapter, disclaiming one or more claims in the patent” and, if the statutory disclaimer is filed properly, “[n]o [IPR] will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” A statutory disclaimer is “considered as part of the original patent” as of the date on which it is “recorded” in the USPTO. 35 U.S.C. § 253(a). “A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.” Guinn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996); see also Raytheon Techs. Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 993 F.3d 1374, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Disclaimed claims are treated as if they never existed.”)” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,516,231 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 1, 2025 · IPR2024-01397 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–19, exercising § 314(a) discretion because the priority dispute no longer justified two petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied
“of two petitions challenging the same claims of the ’918 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 22–25. As our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide explains, “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) at 59. However, the Trial Practice Guide recognizes that “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary,” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” Id.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,647,918 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays Internaltional Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2024 · IPR2024-00855 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 and 8–14, exercising § 314(a) discretion under Fintiv because the factors favored denial and the merits were not compelling.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“We consider the following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–6.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We have authority to institute an inter partes review where a petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under appropriate circumstances, however, we may exercise our discretion under Section 314(a) and deny review without regard to whether the petitioner has met that threshold. Trial Practice Guide,3 64; see 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). For reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion under Section 314(a) and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“On this record, we discern a genuinely-disputed issue surrounding the correct construction of the first wavelength spectrum limitation. Specifically, a question arises whether the first wavelength spectrum limitation can be 13 Neither party identifies the litigation involving Petitioner’s real parties-ininterest as related to this proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 5, 1. That litigation, however, involves assertions of the ’547 patent claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Ex. 2053, 1, 8; see Pet. 1 (identifying those entities as Petitioner’s real parties-in-interest). met by a portion of the radiation emitted by the organic layer (as argued by Petitioner); or instead, the first wavelength spectrum limitation refers to the entirety of the radiation emitted by the organic layer (as argued by Patent Owner). Compare Pet. 23–25, 57–58, with Prelim. Resp. 64–74. To be clear, we need not and, therefore, do not resolve the correct construction of the first wavelength spectrum limitation. It is enough for us to observe, on this record, that a genuinely-disputed issue surrounds this issue of claim construction. As explained in the next section, that dispute casts doubt upon whether Petitioner shows sufficiently, for purposes of trial institution, that the prior art suggests the filter transparency limitation.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“14 Petitioner belatedly suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been prompted to replace the emitter material employed by the prior art (namely, BCzVBi in DPvBi) with a different, but undisclosed, emitter material having “no significant emission at wavelengths above 500 nm.” Opp. Supp. Br. 2 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 43); see Reply 3–4 (same). That argument is not presented in the Petition, much less supported in the Petition by a rationale to combine. See Pet. 16–17, 48–50 (mapping the organic layer sequence of claim 1 to the organic layer sequence of Igarashi or Shiotani, which both employ BCzVBi in DPvBi as the emitter material (Ex. 1004 ¶ 88; Ex. 1005, 5/12)).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,314,547 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00729 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because the Petition did not sufficiently explain how the asserted references teach claim 1’s control data limitation or establish unpatentability of the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The question before us is not whether we could come up with a way to understand how the asserted prior art could render the challenged claims unpatentable, but rather did Petitioner provide the arguments and evidence to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Here, Petitioner has not met that burden and as such, Petitioner has not shown by a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenDenied
“contentions with sufficient particularity. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”). We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to sufficiently explain how the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Neither Petitioner’s claim chart for limitation [1.f] nor the other portions of the Petition identified in Petitioner’s Reply identify what disclosure in Loewen or Fujimoto corresponds to this “control data,” or why this “control data” would be inherent in the disclosures of those references. Additionally, as discussed above, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth’s Declaration to provide argument not set forth in the Petition, such reliance would be an improper incorporation by reference. And, in any event, Dr. Forsyth also does not identify with specificity what disclosures of Loewen or Fujimoto correspond to the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Finally, Petitioner’s Reply does not explain how Loewen’s disclosure that the computer “triggers” the still cameras to capture images involves “control data,” or why one of ordinary skill would understand that “control data” is necessarily sent as part of this “triggering.” Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches element [1.f], and thus has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over this combination. Because Petitioner’s other grounds are all directed to claims that depend from claim 1, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show unpatentability of those claims as well.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,182,657
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.