- PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00404 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–17, 19, 26, 28–41, and 43–46 on both obviousness grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review, under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2024) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have been someone with at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering/science, or a related scientific field, and (2) either (a) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering/science, or a related field, or (b) two or more years of work or research experience in wireless networking and/or computing.” Pet. 13” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Petitioner identifies the term “client side modem functionality” in claim 5 for construction. Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not address the construction of this term. See Prelim. Resp. 4–6. We determine that we do not need to construe the term “client side modem functionality” for purposes of this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that the terms “first communication technology,” “second communication technology,” and “third communication technology” should “be understood to have their plain meaning wherein each of these recited communication technologies is a different communication technology.” Prelim. Resp. 5. For purposes of this decision, we will apply Patent Owner’s understanding of these terms. However, we note that Patent Owner does not explain what it means by a “different” communication technology, or how to determine whether two communication technologies qualify as “different.” Id. at 5–6. The parties may wish to explore the meaning of this term further during the trial.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,413,502 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00809 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Limont, Wright, and Xu combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that Limont, Wright, and Xu teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Here, we do not find that Fintiv factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Additionally, after weighing Fintiv factors 1–6, we determine that, on balance, these factors do not favor exercising our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, there is no need to determine whether the Petition establishes compelling merits. G. Conclusion on Fintiv Factors Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to implement a secure environment as taught by Xu on Limont’s mobile device incorporating Wright’s encryption functionality” so as “to provide for the protection of data in mobile devices using techniques such as hardware protections and encryptions” and to address “‘malicious users’ accessing confidential information.” Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263–267, 379– 286, 431–440; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1016 ¶ 30). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Wright’s encryption functionality using a secure environment as taught by Xu” because “the teachings of Xu beneficially increase Limont’s and Wright’s protections.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 437; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 78, 267; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165–222, 263–298, 427–440), 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 296–297; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 9, 40, Fig. 1), 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 438–440).” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based on Patent Owner’s cited support from the Specification and declarant testimony that has not yet been challenged, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “network data service” to mean “a service that provides network data.” Prelim. Resp. 5; Ex. 1001, 1:48–49 (“many access networks such as wireless networks, cable networks and DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 30. The parties should consider further addressing Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,042 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00612 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 12–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 12 is unpatentable over Amidon and Walsh.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ positions appear to be more or less the same. Based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision, as it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. We note that our Decision would be the same under either party’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of institution, we apply the District Court’s construction of “situational network,” that is, “a network created in response to an event or situation.” We note that this construction appears consistent with the Specification and the language of the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57) (referring to “a situational network established in response to the situation”); 3:46–48 (stating that “a situational network 3000 is created when an occurrence or expected occurrence of an event or situation . . .”); 4:34–36 (stating that “[e]xamples of events or situations 3005 that might initiate the formation of a situational network include weather phenomenon . . .”); 33:10–11 (claim 1, reciting “the situational network established in response to the situation”), 34:42–44 (claim 22, reciting “situational network established in response to the situation”); Ex. 2007, 2–4. We emphasize that our construction of “situational network” is preliminary. To the extent that there is any objection to this construction, we encourage the parties to further develop the record during the trial.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“determined that “event node” does not need construction. Ex. 2007, 5. In the Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner “requests the Board to consider and adopt the District Court’s construction.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. We agree with the District Court that “event node” does not need construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Applying the guidance provided in the Memorandum, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution in this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner submitted a Sotera stipulation.” slip op. at 14
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,249,932 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00528 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11, 22, and 23 and 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
“information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on the current record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Office (“USPTO”) issued a Memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Memorandum”),11 which states, among other things, that “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). In the Preliminary Reply, Petitioner states that “Petitioner will not raise in district court any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the Petition.” Prelim. Reply 8 (citing Sotera, IPR2020-01019, Paper 12).” slip op. at 11
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“The Board has indicated that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 59 (Nov. 2019) (“CTPG”).10 But “the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary.” Id. Here, we agree with Petitioner that the claims in the ’932 patent are relatively lengthy. Moreover, the overlap of petitions (i.e., the prior art asserted), mitigates the potential that the parallel proceedings “may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board or the patent owner” or that it “could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. Further, under these circumstances, it is not apparent there has been a substantial benefit afforded to Petitioner by filing two petitions. Thus, we” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“related litigation issued a claim construction order construing the term “situational network” as “a network created in response to an event or situation.” Ex. 2007, 2. The District Court rejected both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, adopted its own construction, and noted that “[n]either party objected to this construction.” Id. at 2–4. In particular, the District Court rejected Patent Owner’s argument that a “situational network” must be part of a larger social network. Id. at 2–3. In the Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner “requests the Board to consider and adopt the District Court’s construction.” Prelim. Sur-reply 1. For purposes of institution, we apply the District Court’s construction of “situational network,” that is, “a network created in response to an event or situation.” We note that this construction appears consistent with the Specification and the language of the claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, code (57) (referring to “a situational network established in response to the situation”); 3:46–48 (stating that “a situational network 3000 is created when an occurrence or expected occurrence of an event or situation . . .”); 4:34–36 (stating that “[e]xamples of events or situations 3005 that might initiate the formation of a situational network include weather phenomenon . . .”); 33:10–11 (claim 1, reciting “the situational network established in response to the situation”), 34:42–44 (claim 22, reciting “situational network established in response to the situation”); Ex. 2007, 2–4. We emphasize that our construction of “situational network” is preliminary. To the extent that there is any objection to this construction, we encourage the parties to further develop the record during the trial.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,249,932 - PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00212 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3 and 5–14, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on the Tajima–Foster and Foster–Hayhurst obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction “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) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITADecided for patent owner
“We note that the claims do not use the term “long-term” in referring to storage devices. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“First, we look to the words of the claims themselves, . . . to define the scope of the patented invention.”). Nor do we see support in the ’116 specification for limiting the claims to “long-term storage,’ which, itself, would require further construction to determine what qualifies as “long-term.” We are, therefore, skeptical of Patent Owner’s proposed limitation of the term “storage device.” However, we need not resolve whether the claims require long-term storage at this stage because we disagree with Patent Owner that this feature distinguishes the systems resulting from combining Foster with Tajima or Hayhurst. See discussion in Sections II.C.2 and II.D, infra.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner provides a motivation to combine the teachings of Tajima and Foster with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 36–40. Petitioner contends that “[persons of ordinary skill] would have recognized that Tajima-Foster would have beneficially provided even further security . . . because encrypted data fragments/key pairs and the KEK needed to decrypt the keys are each stored on different databases under separate control of respective service sites.” Pet. 39. Furthermore, Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies that “to safely include encryption keys with encrypted data, Foster teaches encrypting the encryption keys.” Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 153.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,178,116 - PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00215 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–10 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would be obvious over Foster and Hayhurst.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to all claims challenged in the Petition. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“The record at this stage sufficiently supports Petitioner’s argument that Foster’s receiver 430 stores content that it receives. Pet. 65 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 8, Fig. 8). According to Dr. Rubin’s annotations, receiver 430 can be a personal computer (PC) or set-top box. Ex. 2003 ¶ 83 (labeling the receiver in Figure 16 as such). This is consistent with Foster. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 49, 51 (describing PC 18 and a set-top box). Foster describes how the receiver stores encrypted content. See id. ¶¶ 8, 79. For example, Foster explains, “Once received, recipient 430 can then synchronously store the encrypted content.” Id. ¶ 79, cited in Pet. 68–69. According to Foster, “The encrypted title key is then attached to the content packet and the header for synchronized transmission to, or storage by a receiver.” Id. ¶ 8 (emphasis added), quoted in Pet. 65. For at least the reason that Foster teaches a PC or at this stage that Foster’s data set is “for storage.” See Pet. 65–66, 80–82. At this stage, we credit Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 221–222) over Dr. Rubin’s (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 108–109) because it is better supported by the current record. In particular, we see no support for Dr. Rubin’s testimony that Foster’s receiver cannot provide long-term storage or is unlike the ’854 patent’s storage devices. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 108– 109. For instance, we see little difference between Foster’s PC 18 and the magnetic or optical disk, USB key drive, or other devices that Dr. Rubin claims are long-term storage devices. Ex. 1001, 67:16–19, cited in Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 108–109. PC 18 has “data storage.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 75. Foster explains “optical media” or “magnetic media” are types of data storage. Id. Foster also states that the receiver stores data. Id. ¶ 8. In view of these parts of Foster, we credit Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony that Foster’s receiver has data storage (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 221–222) over Dr. Rubin’s testimony that Foster’s devices are unlike those described in the ’854 patent (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 108–109), at this stage.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 10032 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s assertions or argue for a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Here, we apply the skill level proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 6.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“key (the encryption operation Petitioner contends would be reordered/repeated).” Id. at 16. Dr. Rubin explains why reordering the steps in the way that Petitioner proposes would have been pointless: Indeed, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would recognize that encryption with the alleged external key would not be an appropriate step to repeat or reorder because it is parsed along with the data set into portions and those portions are then encrypted. Consequently, encrypting the shares with the alleged external key (i.e., the session master key) would render the splitting and encryption of the alleged external key pointless. Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 52–53. Dr. Bhattacharjee does not fully explain why the key that is parsed and encrypted is then used to further secure the data. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–111. Thus, we credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 52–53) over Dr. Bhattacharjee’s (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 110–111) on this issue. For this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown that Orsini discloses the Different-Order Version. See Pet. 33–35.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,452,854 - PTAB · May 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00214 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–10 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on Foster grounds for claims 1–3, 7, and 8 and claims 4–6, 9, and 10.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 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. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Applying those standards, and upon consideration of the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one claim of the ’609 patent is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to all Challenged Claims of the ’609 patent on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- 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 may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’609 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“repeated, would not necessarily indicate that the chunks, each encrypted with a separate share key, would be again encrypted using the session master key (the cryptographic operation Petitioner contends would be reordered/repeated).” Prelim. Resp. 16. Dr. Rubin explains why reordering the steps in the way that Petitioner proposes would have been “pointless:” Indeed, [the skilled artisan] would recognize that encryption with the alleged first key would not be an appropriate step to repeat or reorder because it is parsed along with the data set into portions and those portions are then encrypted. Consequently, encrypting the shares with the alleged first key (i.e., the session master key) would render the splitting and encryption of the alleged first key pointless. Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 52–53. Dr. Bhattacharjee does not fully explain why the key that is parsed and encrypted is then used to further secure the data. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–105. Thus, we find Dr. Rubin’s testimony (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 52–53) more persuasive than Dr. Bhattacharjee’s (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 101–105) on this issue. For this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown that Orsini discloses the Different-Order Versions.” slip op. at 39
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Decided for petitioner
“Here, however, Petitioner does not insist any construction is incorrect. Rather, Petitioner presents alternative rationales for why the claims are unpatentable, stating that the Petition demonstrates “unpatentability regardless of which proposed construction is correct.” Pet. 9. Even though some stated rationales are based on Patent Owner’s constructions in the District Court Case, the Petition complies with the rule because it explains how the Challenged Claims are to be construed under the alternative challenges. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). The rule “does not require Petitioner to express its subjective agreement regarding correctness of its proffered claim constructions or to take ownership of those constructions.” Western Digital Corp. v. SPEX Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00084, Paper 14 at 11 (PTAB Apr. 25, 2018).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,068,609 - PTAB · Jan 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01157 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would have been shown obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential).” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In an inter partes review proceeding, we construe patent claims using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 2; Prelim. Resp. 8. We agree that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22–23). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we agree with Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument. While Rao’s packet- level control is different from the claims’ and D’Amore’s application-level control, that difference does not undermine or counsel against application-level control. See DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“A reference does not teach away . . . if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the contrary, as Petitioner explains, both the packet-level and application-level control methods further the same design objective of proactively preventing overloaded connections that impact performance. See Pet. 22. Moreover, nothing in Rao’s packet-level control undermines Petitioner’s explanation that one skilled in the art would implement a different feature of Rao— Rao’s application association—as a known way “to identify application traffic at the packet level, allowing for inter-application classification of activities based on protocol.” Id. at 21. In light of Petitioner’s rationale, as outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support its assertion that it would have been obvious to combine Rao’s packet capture mechanism, which identifies an application associated with each packet, with the Cole-D’Amore system that does application-level control. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 419 (2007).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,405,224 - PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01060 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 are obvious over Giaimo and Sinivaara.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’814 patent. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(POSA) “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of wireless communication systems and protocols, with an allowance for additional education or experience that might substitute for those requirements.” Pet. 7. Petitioner also states that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been skilled at working with the Bluetooth Specification and 802.11/a/b/g standards.” Id. (citing Ding Decl. ¶¶ 27, 28. Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute concerning the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which at this juncture appears reasonable given the specification of the ’814 patent and asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“same as the standard applied in district court and was adopted to avoid decisions that construe the same or similar claims of a patent inconsistently across the different forums. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,342 (Oct. 11, 2018). “Minimizing differences between claim construction standards used in the various fora will lead to greater uniformity and predictability of the patent grant, improving the integrity of the patent system.” Id. Petitioner has the burden of providing sufficient support for the claim construction it provided here, including an explanation for why the Board should consider anew a construction the district court considered (including the same intrinsic evidence support) but did not adopt. Trial Practice Guide, 48. After reviewing the district court’s claim construction analysis and the similarities between the failed arguments there and the proposed construction here, and considering the lack of explanation by Petitioner regarding why we should deviate from the prior construction, we hereby adopt the district court’s claim construction of “overlay protocol”—protocol governing a second network, which protocol has aspects in common with a first network protocol to reduce interference such that the second and first network can co-exist. At this juncture, we find reasonable the inclusion of the benefit to reduce interference such that the networks can co-exist because it aligns with the general descriptions of the overlay protocol. See Ex. 1001, 9:60−10:10 (explaining that communication with the WPAN device might proceed without interference from the conventional WLAN, such as by coordinating usage of the wireless medium using the overlay protocol that is partially compatible with the WLAN protocol).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“2. Means Plus Function Terms Petitioner states that several claim terms are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and that both parties agree on their construction as follows. Pet. 9−10. Patent Owner does not dispute these assertions. Below is a summary of these terms and the stated construction, which we apply for purposes of this Decision. Term Function Structure logic for processing As recited Processing unit 28 data received via a wireless radio circuit logic for generating As recited Processing unit 28 data to be transmitted by the wireless radio circuit logic for initiating and” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,599,814 - Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 8, 2023 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 10–31 on all eight asserted § 103 grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments in the record, we determine that the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We therefore grant institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent. Our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Nonetheless, we provide the following guidance for the meaning of “fabric,” in claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 to assist the parties in the upcoming trial, and encourage the parties to address this term at the appropriate stages of the trial. At this stage of the proceeding, based on the current record, we interpret “fabric” as “a network topology such as the physical structure of a switch or network.” This is consistent with an ordinary, customary meaning. Ex. 2003, 3 (defining a “fabric” as “[a] descriptive term referring to the physical structure of a switch or network.”) (cited in Prelim. Resp. 12). This meaning is consistent with Patent Owner’s assertion that “fabric” is an “interconnected topology” in “enterprise networks.” Prelim. Resp. 10. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Black, testifies that “[a]s enterprise networks became larger and larger, a complex, interconnected topology known as a ‘fabric’ was developed to handle the management of such networks.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 44 (cited in Prelim. Resp. 10). Dr. Black testifies that “a fabric of network devices (such as switches or access points for each subnetwork) was developed to manage network traffic between subnetworks, and to and from the Internet.” Id. This meaning is consistent with the ’825 patent, which describes a private network 120 topology of computers and servers coupled together by a local area network (LAN) or a wireless LAN. Ex. 1001, 5:3–9, Fig. 1. “FIG. 2 shows a topology 200 of a cooperative security fabric that consists of network security appliances of FIG. 1.” Id. at 5:50–51 (emphasis added). Root node 220 corresponds to network security appliance 121 and acts as a wide area network (WAN) role in topology 200 to connect a private network to other networks or the Internet. Id. at 5:52–56. It is the outermost network security appliance of the cooperative security fabric. Id. at 5:52–55.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenInstituted
“At this stage, based on the evidence and arguments, we conclude that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence at this stage to establish that Chandra discloses element 1[b].” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,084,825
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.