• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01281 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 12–15, and 17–21 are unpatentable as obvious over Cornett, Paatela, and Nelson; claim 8 is also unpatentable with Russell.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “been motivated to combine the teachings of Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell in the way Petitioner proposes and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See supra §§ III.E.2(a)–(b). Hence, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 is unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claim would have been obvious over Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, and Russell.” slip op. at 122

  • 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 13

  Patent outcomesUS 7,738,471 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,738,471
• DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 9, 2025 · IPR2023-00268 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–10, 16–18, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious over Scott; the Board did not reach the anticipation challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field; and at least two years of experience in the wager based gaming industry.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). Petitioner states that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 28). 1 The parties have not directed us to any such objective evidence. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Vancura, uses essentially the same definition as Petitioner. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 33; Ex. 2007 ¶ 46. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Both parties’ witnesses interpret “fixed odds” to mean the odds/multiplier of the wager is fixed at the time the wager is placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 160 (“the wager on a bingo game would be a ‘fixed odds single’ wager when placed because the odds of winning are fixed” (original emphasis omitted, our emphasis added)); Ex. 2007 ¶ 135 (“‘fixed odds’ in the context of a ‘fixed odds single’ [means] a wager where a bettor is offered a multiplier for wagering on a given outcome(s), and where the multiplier and therefore the potential payout are fixed at the time the bettor places their desired wager”). It necessarily follows that the payout for the wager would also be fixed at the time the wager is placed. Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation that “single” means the wager is for the outcome of a single event, as opposed to, for example, a parlay wager that involves the outcomes of multiple events. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 19 (“[an ordinarily skilled artisan] would understand the term ‘fixed odds single’ to refer to a game where ‘the odds of winning are fixed, and the wager is on a single outcome’”). Accordingly, we interpret “fixed odds single” to mean a wager on the outcome of a single event in which the odds/multiplier is fixed at the time the wager is placed. The parties disagree, however, on whether bingo is a fixed odds single wagering event. Dr. Vancura testifies that bingo does not involve a fixed odds single wager because “[b]ingo does not have a ‘fixed odds’ payout — it has a ‘pot’ available to be won, which is either pre-determined by the operator . . . , or more commonly, depends on the number of cards in play wherein part of the purchase price of each card is contributed to a jackpot.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 136. Mr. Crevelt testifies that bingo does involve a fixed odds single wager because all bingo cards have the same chance of winning prior to initiation of the game. Ex. 1007 ¶ 160. Mr. Crevelt does not address meaningfully the fact that the odds of winning at bingo are a function of the number of cards in play—as the number of cards in play increases, the chances that another card first achieves “bingo” increase and the initial player’s chance of winning decreases. Nor does Petitioner explain persuasively how the disclosure of a fixed odds betting terminal in the ’779 patent supports its assertion that bingo is a fixed odds single wager. See Pet. Reply 20. Notably, a reference relied upon by Petitioner explains that fixed odds betting terminals host games other than fixed odds games. See Ex. 1058, 28 (explaining that fixed odds betting terminals “are machines on which can be played fixed odds and betting games”); see also Tr. 23:12–22 (Petitioner’s counsel agreeing that there has been some scope creep regarding fixed odds betting terminals such that they include games other than fixed odds single wagers). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that bingo is not a fixed odds single wager.” slip op. at 36

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “However, we agree that claim 16 recites a system where multiple participants place wagers on the same wagering event. Claim 16 uses both plural and singular terms, indicating that the recited plural terms refer to a plurality of elements and the recited singular terms refer to a single element. For example, claim 16 recites “receive, by the trading engine module, a plurality of wagers on the wagering event from the plurality of input devices via the communications interface, the plurality of wagers input by a plurality of participants via the user interfaces of respective input devices from the plurality of input devices.” Ex. 1001, 54:11–16. We interpret this language to mean that a single trading engine module receives wagers on a single wagering event from a plurality of participants each using a different input device. Scott discloses “a number of players electronically connected” where one player may sell symbols to “other players.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 96. Scott also discloses various types of games, including games typically played by more than one player. See, e.g., id. ¶ 44 (disclosing “Class II” games, keno, lottery, bingo). Thus, Scott at least suggests a system where multiple participants engage in the same game. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to use Scott’s gaming machine in a multiplayer environment. Mr. Crevelt testifies that “it is an obvious matter of common sense to take a system that can be for use by one player and put it to use for multiple players” and “if one player is able to utilize Scott’s system described above in accordance [with] claim 1, but multiple players wanted to play, common sense dictates that such systems should be reproduced for multiple players.” Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 183–184. We agree, especially given Scott’s strong suggestion that its system may be used to host multiplayer games as noted above. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing, as it is not clear to us, and Patent Owner has not explained adequately, how reproducing Scott’s system for multiple players, as proposed by Petitioner, would not result in a multiplayer wagering system.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s obviousness rationales are supported by rational underpinning. Petitioner correctly notes that Scott discloses that its memory devices “may utilize various storage technologies to accomplish data storage and retrieval.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Pet. 84 (citing same). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that, given the widespread use of databases to store data in computer systems and computerized gaming systems in particular, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to store Scott’s player tracking account data as records in a database. See Pet. 84–85 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:19–26, 26:29–32; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 96; Ex. 1006 ¶ 53; Ex. 1007 ¶ 92); see also Ex. 2001 ¶ 103 (Dr. Vancura testifying that, in his experience, “player tracking systems store a player’s wagering information”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Scott and Mr. Crevelt’s testimony support Petitioner’s contentions.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,200,779 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,200,779
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted

    “operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,049,080
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01090 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Fells-based combinations set out in the grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 13) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “charger surface, to inductively transfer power to the receiver [of the first mobile device],” as recited in limitation 1(k). Pet. 5 (bolding omitted). Petitioner contends this term should be construed as a means-plus-function term, and that the underlined portion identified above identifies the function. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure is described in the Specification and in dependent claims 24 and 25. Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:35–38 (“[T]he charger and or receiver can include means to provide more precise alignment between the charger and receiver coils and antennas. These can include visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist the user in alignment of parts.”); 25:56–63 (claim 24: “the means for position includes one or more magnets to position the receiver in the power transfer position”, claim 25: “means for positioning includes one or more members of a group consistent of visual, physical, or magnetic means to assist in the positioning the receiver in the power transfer position.”)). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our Decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 15

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability of a claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). As stated above, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s contentions. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 8, 13, and 15–18 of the ’349 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (emphasis added). This is the standard I previously applied to Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. Inst. Dec. (Fitzpatrick, J., concurring at 2). During trial, all of Petitioner’s challenges went unrebutted, including Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17. See PO Resp. 1 (Patent Owner “elects to not proffer additional argument on the papers or through any hearings that may occur in this proceeding.”). Thus, because I previously determined Petitioner’s Ground 1 challenge to claim 17 presented compelling merits and because Patent Owner did not rebut that challenge during trial, I conclude that Petitioner has necessarily met its burden of proving claim 17 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,292,349
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Mojo Mobility Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2025 · IPR2023-01089 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 are unpatentable as obvious over the Fells-based grounds; the Board adopted the unrebutted petition analyses.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further asserts that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner has not proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision (Dec. 12) adopting Petitioner’s proposal was incorrect, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s position on this term. See PO Resp. Our decision does not require an express construction of any particular claim terms. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “obvious over Fells. Pet. 7–76. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 5, 7, 10–12, and 26 would have been obvious over Fells. We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “A patent claim “is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. An obviousness determination requires finding “both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 11,292,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,292,349
• Oracle Corporation v. Parking World Wide LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00385 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over Ivey, Matsumoto, and Tillotson, with Slemmer added for claims 4 and 7; Ward, Haynes, and Tillotson provide an alternative ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “improved “efficiency” would have been a sufficient reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ivey, Matsumoto, and Tillotson, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Dr. Paradiso’s testimony that the combination of Ivey and Matsumoto “would more efficiently streamline parking enforcement.” Pet. 48. Based on Dr. Paradiso’s undisputed testimony, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ivey and Matsumoto in the proposed manner “to more efficiently streamline parking enforcement.” Id. Patent Owner also does not expressly dispute Dr. Paradiso’s testimony that incorporating Tillotson’s reservation and subscription systems into Ivey/Matsumoto would have simplified the payment process and saved motorists’ time. Based on Dr. Paradiso’s testimony, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ivey and Matsumoto with Tillotson in the proposed manner to “make the parking management system more efficient and easier to use,” to simplify the process by which parking spaces are paid for, and to save motorists’ time. Id. Finally, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Ivey, Matsumoto, and Tillotson, or Dr. Paradiso’s testimony in support of that contention. Therefore, based on Dr. Paradiso’s undisputed testimony, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these teachings.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner concurs with Petitioner’s definition. See PO Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner concurs with the Board in adopting Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA” for the Decision on Institution). As we did in our Decision on Institution, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of a person of ordinary skill. See Dec. 9. 8 Patent Owner has not presented any evidence of secondary considerations. 9 We find (and Patent Owner does not dispute) that Dr. Paradiso is qualified to offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 13.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “As the parties do not expressly dispute the construction of any particular term, we determine that no express construction of any term is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where the construction is not material to the dispute). Several of Patent Owner’s arguments, however, imply that the claims are limited in particular ways. For example, Patent Owner suggests” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree that the claims are limited to parking spaces along a street. First, neither independent claim includes any such limitation; instead, the claims are directed to methods “for representing the parking status of a plurality of parking spaces,” without indicating where the plurality of parking spaces are located. Ex. 1001, claims 1, 5. Second, the Specification teaches that the parking spaces that may be represented can be in a lot or garage, not only on a street. See, e.g., id., Abstr. (“A parking status system overlays upon images of a street, a lot, or a garage with representations of parking vehicles the status of any parking space shown in the image.”); id. at 5:4–7 (“The present invention overlays the parking status of vehicles upon a visual image of a street or lot as it matches the GPS coordinates of the parking control officer, the vehicle, and the street scene.”). Patent Owner also suggests that the claims are limited to images obtained from a camera that is part of the user’s portable electronic device. Patent Owner asserts, for example, that Haynes obtains video images from “a camera upon a pole” that is “in a fixed position at a fixed elevation,” whereas “the ’421 patent receives imagery from a mobile device camera held by an officer at his height,” which is “movable.” PO Resp. 24. Again, we disagree that the claims are so limited. The independent claims recite a method for “representing the parking status of a plurality of parking spaces to a screen of a user’s portable electronic device upon a real time camera view.” Ex. 1001, claims 1, 5. “Represent[ing] . . . to a screen” means that the real time camera view of the parking spaces is displayed on the portable electronic device, but does not require the real time camera view to be obtained from the portable electronic device.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,438,421 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,438,421
• Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00474 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhou, Bannister, Gentry, and Durfee; the Board did not reach the additional Welty-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “known that a spiral flute helps to lift swarf away from the cutting surface. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–202). The testimony of Petitioner’s expert states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “the spiral shape of the flute side walls was desirable since it helps to lift chips, or swarf, away from the cutting surface and evacuate it from the hole being cut.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 202. This makes intuitive sense, as a wall perpendicular to the surface would push accumulated chips along, whereas the wedge shape of the spiral will lift them away from the cutting surface. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Zhou’s flute to arrange the cutting edges such that they, as a whole, have a spiral shape in order to achieve these chip-lifting benefits. Thus, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention had a reason to include the known feature of cutting tips that spiraled around the cone portion, in order to achieve the benefit of providing better chip removal.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “formed sequentially and spirally on a cone portion exterior” of the twist drill. The parties agreed to construe the cutting blade groups being “formed spirally” as meaning that the cutting blade groups are slanted with respect to the rotational axis, i.e., are not perpendicular to the rotational axis. The parties have agreed that being “formed spirally” is met by axial relief. Pet. 23; Tr. 77:9–12. We adopted this construction. slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “2. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those 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 19

  Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,007,583
• Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00473 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “(noting the header). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner specifically cites to this document as evidence of beliefs held by a third party (different from Astro). Mot. Excl. 7. Patent Owner asserts that these are “observations of testing.” Opp. Mot. Excl. 10. We note that this document was produced by Astro, a party with ties to Patent Owner. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner attempts to attribute the statements in this document to another third party (not Astro). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to use these statements for the truth of the matter asserted. See, e.g., Resp. 50–51 (alleging that the third party “was [] impressed with their performance” and citing to Exhibit 2059 as evidence of “initial testing documents”). Accordingly, Patent Owner is not only attempting to use these documents for the truth of the matter asserted, but Patent Owner is attempting to attribute them to a party different from the party that made the statements. We do not find any exceptions to the hearsay rule to be applicable here. In addition, Exhibit 2059, as offered, is misleading and confusing. We exclude Exhibit 2059. 5. Exhibit 2060 Exhibit 2060 appears to contain a series of slides and notes, as would be used in a presentation. The document appears to be that of a third party. Patent Owner asserts that the content in this exhibit demonstrates the third party’s “strong desire to copy” the claimed invention. See, e.g., Resp. 51, 59. Assuming they are what they are alleged to be, then these are out-of- court statements by a third party being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that an employee of the third party thought highly of Patent Owner’s licensed drill bits. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s passing arguments that these represent “real-time observations, impressions of, and reactions to” the claimed invention. Opp. Mot. Excl. 9–10. We exclude Exhibit 2060.” slip op. at 77

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts the following level of ordinary skill in the art: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals. Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 14. Patent Owner does not appear to challenge this proposed level of skill or offer its own. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the ’583 patent and prior art.” slip op. at 17

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “which are easy to be removed.” Ex. 1001, 9:19–22 (emphasis added). Another portion of the specification discusses chip size in terms of the size of an individual composite cutting blade group. Id. at 3:5–25. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’583 patent. We construe the “finer chips” limitation as reciting a natural consequence of having a plurality of cutting surfaces, relative to having one large cutting surface. 3. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. Realtime” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner asserts that objective indicia of non-obviousness overcomes any prima facie obviousness case. Resp. 44–60; Sur-reply 15– 26. Patent Owner first asserts that there is a nexus between the challenged claims and its alleged objective indicia. Resp. 46–49; Sur-reply 15–19. Patent Owner also alleges that its evidence shows copying (Resp. 49–55; Sur-reply 20–21), industry praise (Resp. 55–56; Sur-reply 21–22), commercial success (Resp. 56–58; Sur-reply 22–26), and satisfaction of a long-felt need (Resp. 58–60). Petitioner disputes these allegations. Reply 18–28. a) Nexus Patent Owner bears the burden of establishing nexus. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A presumption of nexus is only appropriate if “the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). The coextensiveness requirement is not met simply by showing that “the patent claims broadly cover the product that is the subject of the evidence of secondary considerations.” Id. at 1377. Coextensiveness can be thought of as “the degree of correspondence between a product and a patent claim.” Id. at 1374. “[T]he existence of one or more unclaimed features, standing alone,” does not necessarily defeat coextensiveness. Id. Instead, “the concept of unclaimed features is best viewed as part of a spectrum.” Teva Phrama. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “The presumption analysis requires the fact finder to consider the unclaimed features of the stated products to determine their level of significance and their impact on the correspondence between the claim and the products.” Id. (citing Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375). The nexus analysis should focus on and consider the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the extent to which the objective indicia speaks to these gaps. Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]o establish a nexus, [the patent owner] needed to present evidence that the commercial success and praise of the [product] derived from those ‘unique characteristics.’”) (citing Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–74). Simply providing evidence tied to features already present in the prior art does not satisfy the inquiry. Id. (“objective indicia must be linked to a [] patent claim’s unique characteristics”); Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (stating that for patents claiming combinations of prior art features, a patentee must show that the secondary considerations evidence is “attributable to the claimed combination of [prior art features], as opposed to, for example, prior art features in isolation or unclaimed features”). Patent Owner’s assertions regarding nexus are conclusory and extensively incorporate by reference other documents. See generally Resp. 46–49; Sur-reply 15–19. Patent Owner begins by citing to sixteen claim charts. Resp. 46 (citing Exs. 2074–2089). Patent Owner then alleges that the products it has licensed “are coextensive with the patented invention” because all of them are drill bits. Id. at 47. Patent Owner asserts that there are no unclaimed features, but in support of that allegation merely cites to its expert, who in turn says the same words without providing any support for his opinion. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶ 150). We acknowledge that the claims of the ’583 patent are directed to a” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,007,583
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00342 · APJ Phillip A Bennett · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang and over Prajapat and Wang; the contingent motion to amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “3. May Not Enlarge the Claim Scope An amendment may not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the” slip op. at 87

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “comprise briefs filed by Petitioner in support of a motion to dismiss for lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel district court litigation involving the challenged patents. The exhibits were submitted together with Patent Owner’s Sur-reply (Paper 33). We have not relied on Exhibit 2006 or Exhibit 2007 in our analysis. Accordingly, we deny the motion as moot.” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2005–” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining compatible embodiments, and we credit Dr. Lieberman’s testimony because he supports his testimony with a passage from Lebrun that is consistent with his conclusion. Id. (stating “Lebrun describes several ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ which includes a subsection of ‘multiple group surfing channels.’ Ex. 1005, 37:19, 43:5 (emphasis in original).”). Consistent with Lebrun’s description, Dr. Lieberman opines, and we agree, that “[a] POSITA would understand ‘multiple group surfing channels’ would be one example/scenario of the ‘variations on the group-surfing session,’ and the latter encompasses the former and the two embodiments are compatible and combinable.” Ex. 1034 ¶ 18.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 8,527,591 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,527,591
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00339 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun and Wang; the Board did not reach the separate Prajapat and Wang challenge.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, or a similar field, and (2) at least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 11–12; see Dec. 9–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 42. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data” and, as a result, this portion of the specification should limit the claim term. PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). The quoted portion of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, however, addresses other terms in the specification and not “information related to a shared web browsing interaction.” PO Resp. 18–19 (quoting Ex. 2004 ¶ 40). As such, the testimony cited by Patent Owner does not support Patent Owner’s position. Accordingly, we determine that the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data” in the written description. c. Plain and Ordinary Meaning Because the patentee has not acted as a lexicographer to set forth a definition of “web browsing interaction data,” we look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. See Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., from the ordinary meaning will be adopted “when the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pet. Reply 5 (Petitioner arguing that “web browsing interaction data” should be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning) (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13). Notably, both Dr. Lieberman and Mr. Friedman agree that the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is sufficient to inform how one of ordinary skill would have understood the term. Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (Dr. Lieberman testifying: “The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions. No additional definition or limitation is required in my opinion, nor is there any special or specific meaning given to the term in the specification of the ’145 patent.”); Ex. 1033, 171:5–16 (Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Friedman, testifying that “the plain and ordinary meaning is sufficient.”). According to Petitioner, the plain and ordinary meaning is “data related to web browsing interactions.” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1034 ¶ 13); Ex. 1034 ¶ 13 (“The plain meaning of ‘web browsing interaction data’ is data related to web browsing interactions.”). Patent Owner’s expert declined to opine on what the plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” other than it excludes webpages and partially filled webpages related to a web browsing interaction. See Ex. 1033, 171:5–16. slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we conclude that the plain language of the claims does not require “web browsing interaction data” to be limited to data describing interaction performed on a website by a host device. We turn to the specification because the meaning of “web browsing interaction data” is informed “not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The written description does not provide a definition or clear meaning for “web browsing interaction data.” Patent Owner acknowledges the term is not expressly used in the written description. PO Resp. 17. Patent Owner, however, identifies “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” as a term that is interchangeable with “web browsing interaction data.” PO Resp. 18, 29. We recognize the specification term “information related to a shared web browsing interaction” is substantially similar10 to Petitioner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “web browsing interaction data” as “data related to web browsing interactions.” 11 Patent Owner identifies three passages that each describe the present invention as receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the received information. PO Resp. 17–18 (block quoting Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:10–24). The identified passages, however, do not show intention to manifestly limit “web browsing interaction data” to data describing interactions” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “forth by Petitioner (Pet. 22–34) discloses or suggests all limitations recited by claim 1, we consider Petitioner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Lebrun and Wang in the manner proposed to arrive at the claimed invention. See Pet. 19–22. (i) Articulated Reasoning To demonstrate obviousness, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Wang’s activating a session invitation with Lebrun’s invitation to join a group-surfing session. Pet. 28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “activating an invitation via a designated URL address would further enable” Lebrun’s group-surfing server “to coordinate and manage the group-surfing session, which would further Lebrun’s objective of providing an ‘improved technique for group access to web sites.’” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1005, 7:1). We agree with Petitioner that activating an invitation via a designated URL address would be a technique that helps coordinate a group-surfing session and would enable multiple related users being able to access “substantially the same” slip op. at 63

  Patent outcomesUS 9,185,145 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,185,145

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.