- Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,527,591 - Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,185,145 - T-Mobile USA v. Dali Wireless, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00830 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–16, 18, and 19 are anticipated by Wu; claims 6, 7, 12, and 17 are obvious over Wu and Sabat-552.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“an educational background in electrical engineering and experience in the design of wireless communication systems,” and “[m]ore particularly, a POSA would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent work experience) and at least 3 years of experience working with wireless communication systems.” PO Resp. 13. We found in the Decision on Institution that Patent Owner’s definition was generally consistent with Petitioner’s definition, with the exception of requiring 3 years or more (as opposed to 2 to 3 years) of work experience in wireless communication systems and, for the purpose of institution, we adopted Petitioner’s provided definition for the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. Dec. on Inst. 20–21. The record does not contain further argument or evidence regarding the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which does not encompass an open-ended (“at least 3 years”) amount of experience and which is supported by the testimony of Dr. open-ended terminology from Patent Owner’s definition and adopt that definition.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“b) Our Conclusion We conclude that the proper construction of “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” encompasses user payload data packaged in or combined with RF carrier channels. We further conclude that “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” is not limited to and does not necessarily include configuration information that is required to or used to reconfigure remote radio units.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“packetize” or “packetizing” as recited in claims 2, 9, and 14. PO Resp. 19– 20; Pet. Reply 5–6. Patent Owner argues that we should construe “packetize” to mean “create data packets that include destination information.” PO Resp. 19–20. Patent Owner argues that this is consistent with how the Board previously interpreted this claim term in the 00571 IPR. PO Resp. 19 (citing Ex. 1017). We do not need to construe “packetizing” because collateral estoppel prevents Patent Owner from arguing that Wu does not disclose “packetizing” as explained below. We also do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes before us. 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 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“When deciding whether issue preclusion applies, we consider whether: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). To the extent Petitioner asks us to consider the 01473 IPR institution decision for issue preclusion, we do not. In that decision the Board reached a finding based on the institution standard (showing of a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) rather than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is before us now (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Ex. 1016. Thus, issues before us here were not presented and adjudged in that institution decision. Regarding the 01473 IPR adverse judgment decision, that decision did not require determination of any issues before us, as that decision was based on Patent Owner canceling the challenged claims rather than any determination regarding unpatentability that had been shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex. 1014. 2. Collateral Estoppel With Respect to the 00571 IPR We find and determine that the final written decision in the 00571 IPR, and the Federal Circuit’s CommScope decision affirming that decision, satisfies the conditions for applying collateral estoppel because the 00571 discloses materially the same claim limitations7 challenged here, and Patent Owner had full representation throughout the proceedings. Setting aside the factors of issue preclusion for a moment, our reviewing court’s affirmance of our final written decision in CommScope is persuasive authority that supports our prior construction of “packetizing” and Petitioner’s showing that Wu teaches the disputed packetizing limitations under that construction. In addition, issue preclusion prevents Patent Owner from re-litigating the issue of whether Wu teaches materially the same disputed limitation. See Pet. Reply 24; Ex. 1017, 31–34 (final written decision determining obviousness of claims 9, 10, 14, and 16 of the ’473 patent over Wu and Sabat-426); Ex. 1072, 5 (summarizing the final written decision regarding the packetizing limitations), 10–16 (finding no error in the determinations regarding the packetizing limitations).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 10,334,499 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,499 - T-Mobile USA v. Dali Wireless, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01293 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable: claims 1–5, 8–11, 13–16, 18, and 19 as anticipated by and obvious over Wu; claims 6, 7, 12, and 17 as obvious over Wu and Sabat-552.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“whether: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party. VirnetX Inc. v Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent field) with 2–3 years of work experience in wireless communications.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have an educational background in electrical engineering and experience in the design of wireless communication systems,” and “[m]ore particularly, a POSA would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering (or a similar technical degree or equivalent work experience) and at least 3 years of experience working with wireless communication systems.” PO Resp. 13. We found in the Decision on Institution that Patent Owner’s definition was generally consistent with Petitioner’s definition, with the exception of requiring 3 years or more (as opposed to 2 to 3 years) of work experience in wireless communication systems and, for the purpose of institution, we adopted Petitioner’s provided definition for the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. Dec. on Inst. 20–21. The record does not contain further argument or evidence regarding the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which does not encompass an open-ended (“at least 3 years”) amount of experience and which is supported by the testimony of Dr.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“a . . . set of radio resources” encompasses user payload data packaged in or combined with RF carrier channels. We further conclude that “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” is not limited to and does not necessarily include configuration information that is required to or used to reconfigure remote radio units.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We do not need to construe “packetizing” because collateral estoppel prevents Patent Owner from arguing that Wu does not disclose “packetizing” as explained below. We also do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes before us. 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 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,334,499 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,499 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00818 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Wu alone or Wu with Sabat-552.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institution of inter partes review of claims 1–19 (“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,334,499 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’499 patent”). Dali Wireless Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 7, “Prelim. Resp.”). Ericsson filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 9). We determined that the information presented in the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and therefore we instituted this proceeding on March 9, 2023, as to all challenged claims and all grounds of unpatentability. Paper 11 (“Dec. on Inst.”). We granted a request in IPR2023-00831 by AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Mobility II LLC to be joined as a Petitioner in this proceeding. Paper 19. After a joint request of Patent Owner and Ericsson, we terminated the proceeding as to Ericsson, leaving AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Mobility II LLC (“Petitioner”) as the lead (and sole) petitioner in this proceeding. Papers 16, 17, 20.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for petitioner
“When deciding whether issue preclusion applies, we consider whether: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). To the extent Petitioner asks us to consider the 01473 IPR institution decision for issue preclusion, we do not. In that decision the Board reached a finding based on the institution standard (showing of a “reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) rather than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, which is before us now (35 U.S.C. § 316(e)). Ex. 1004. Thus issues before us here were not presented and adjudged in that institution decision. Regarding the 01473 IPR adverse judgment decision, that decision did not require determination of any issues before us, as that decision was based on Patent Owner canceling the challenged claims rather than any determination regarding unpatentability that had been shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex. 1005.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The record does not contain further argument or evidence regarding the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which does not encompass an open-ended (“at least 3 years”) amount of experience and which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Houh. We would reach the same conclusions if we were to remove the open-ended terminology from Patent Owner’s definition and adopt that definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“a . . . set of radio resources” is not limited to and does not necessarily include configuration information that is required to or used to reconfigure remote radio units. As Petitioner argues, there does not appear to be any indication in the specification and other intrinsic evidence that “digital representation” should be given more than its ordinary meaning, or that an underlying construction of “radio resources” would not be applied to this claim term, which explicitly includes “radio resources.” Pet. Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, representation” in the specification of the ’499 patent). Our construction is further supported by the language of the claims, which requires that each “set of radio resources” is “for transmission at an antenna of the first remote unit.” Ex. 1001, 14:17–19, 14:22–24, 15:3–5, 15:8–10, 16:6–8, 16:11–13. With respect to the “digital representation” of “set[s] of radio resources,” the specification of the ’499 patent describes that in the downlink (base station to DRU antenna) path for data, RF signals received at the DAU from base station(s), are down-converted, digitized, and further processed resulting in “independently serialized, parallel data streams” that are delivered to DRUs. Ex. 1001, 4:63–5:12. Petitioner contends that this description of delivery of a digitized version of an RF signal to DRUs describes the sending/transmission of a digital representation of the radio. Pet. 9–10. While Patent Owner appears to argue that a “digital representation” of a radio resource would be only an “identifier” of, e.g., an RF carrier (PO Resp. 18), this does not appear to be supported by the specification or the cited testimony of Dr. Chrissan. We do not see a reason to relate “digital representation of . . . a set of radio resources” in the claims to the description in the ’499 patent specification of the remote configuration of DRU parameter settings via the DAU, including detecting or determining radio resources assigned to a DRU and configuring the DRU, turning on and off individual carriers transmitted and received by a DRU. PO Resp. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:50–62, 6:31–44, 7:44–50, 12:15–39, 12:58–13:2). No cited portion of the specification describes these signals sent from a DAU to control a DRU as digital representations of a set of radio resources. While Patent Owner cites, in support, Dr. Chrissan’s declaration, Dr. Chrissan does” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,334,499 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,499 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 5, 2024 · IPR2022-01419 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Wu alone or Wu with Sabat-552.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for petitioner
“When deciding whether issue preclusion applies, we consider whether: (1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the Apple, Inc., 909 F.3d 1375, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We found in the Decision on Institution that Patent Owner’s definition was generally consistent with Petitioner’s definition, with the exception of requiring 3 years or more (as opposed to 2 to 3 years) of work experience in wireless communication systems and, for the purpose of institution, we adopted Petitioner’s provided definition for the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. The record does not contain further argument or evidence regarding the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, and we again adopt Petitioner’s definition, which does not encompass an open-ended (“at least 3 years”) amount of experience and which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Houh. We would reach the same conclusions if we were to remove the open-ended terminology from Patent Owner’s definition and adopt that definition.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“b) Our Conclusion We conclude that the proper construction of “digital representation of a . . . set of radio resources” is not limited to and does not necessarily include configuration information that is required to or used to reconfigure remote radio units.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We do not need to construe “packetizing” because collateral estoppel prevents Patent Owner from arguing that Wu does not disclose “packetizing” as explained below. We also do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes before us. 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 10,334,499 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,499 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2024 · IPR2023-00646 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed Leng-based grounds, including combinations with Cannon and Gupta.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“persuasive. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence claim 1 would have been obvious over Leng alone or the combined teachings of Leng and Cannon.” slip op. at 93
Patent outcomesUS 8,682,338 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - AT&T Corp. / AT&T Communications LLC et al. v. Dali Wireless Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 30, 2024 · IPR2022-01212 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable: claims 1–3 as obvious over Leng, and claims 4–12 as obvious over Leng, Cannon, and Gupta.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board construes claims using the same claim construction standard employed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under the principles set forth by our reviewing court, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). 1. Determining Load Percentage” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“persuasive. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of evidence claim 1 would have been obvious over Leng alone or the combined teachings of Leng and Cannon.” slip op. at 93
Patent outcomesUS 8,682,338 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,682,338 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00594 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 9–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Shull, Farnham, and Mui; claim 5 is also unpatentable over those references and Adelman.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering[,] computer engineering[,] or equivalent and two years of professional experience relating to computer networking systems that provide content filtering,” and that a “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 17–19). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 3. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’892 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We adopt that level in deciding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard that would be used to construe the claims in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). The claim construction standard includes construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In construing claims in accordance with their ordinary and customary meaning, we take 1315–17. Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party contends that any claim term requires construction. Pet. 12; PO Resp. 3. We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any terms to decide the issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“webpages were publicly accessible. Instead, Dr. Medvidovic testifies that “something like crawling MySpace was not possible until sometime in the second half of 2008,” i.e., much later than the time of the invention. Ex. 1040, 63:21–64:6. In view of the Internet Archive records as well as Mr. Nathaniel E. Frank-White’s testimony, discussed above, we do not find Dr. Medvidovic’s testimony credible. Moreover, Dr. Medvidovic testifies that the Internet Archive “does a certain kind of crawl over publicly accessible websites that allow that kind of crawling” (Ex. 1040, 65:3–6), thus, further supporting that the Internet Archive’s MySpace page captures from 2006 (Ex. 1011) demonstrate automated public accessibility of MySpace at that time. See In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success . . . all that is required is a reasonable expectation of success” (quoting In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the teachings of Shull and Farnham. Pet. 23–28. Although Shull does not specifically disclose social networking websites, like MySpace, as a source of potential data, Shull seeks to “bring massive amounts of data together . . . for the development of a reputational database,” and teaches obtaining data from numerous sources on the Internet, including “from enabling parties (such as ISPs, registrars, hosting providers, certificate authorities, etc.).” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 40, 47, 68–69. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered MySpace to be a data source for Shull’s system. For example, Shull defines “enabling party” as “any party that provides services facilitating an entity’s presence on the Internet.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (emphasis added). Petitioner provides persuasive evidence that the MySpace platform did just that. Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1011; Ex. 1003 ¶ 52) (explaining with an example how MySpace facilitates musical artist KanYe West’s presence on the internet and documents “data regarding friends, groups, etc., associated with KanYe West”); Pet. Reply 16 (citing Ex.1010, 1; Ex. 2014, 22:14–23:23). without limitation, registrars . . . and/or registries . . . , hosting providers . . . , ISPs . . . , DNS providers . . . , certificate authorities 145d, and/or the like.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 42 (emphasis added). Shull further explains that “[d]ata about and/or from these parties can include data compiled and/or maintained by these providers about their customers, . . . historical behavior of customers of a given provider, etc.” Id. Farnham discloses that MySpace makes similar data about its members publicly available. Farnham discloses the types of data available on MySpace groups, including comments posted by MySpace members. Ex. 1021, 119, 122–23, 126; Pet. 37–38. Dr. Reddy testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found MySpace’s relationship data as well as activity data useful in “identify[ing] relationships (e.g., friendships, group memberships, and related domains) and also to identify a person’s activity and associated content (e.g., comments, messages, blogs, etc.) that may directly impact the reputation score for the person and the web page.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 57. We credit Dr. Reddy’s testimony because it is consistent with Shull and Farnham’s disclosure.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,965,892 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,965,892 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2022 · IPR2021-00261 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 5, 6, and 18–20 were held unpatentable; claims 1, 2, and 4 were cancelled, and substitute claims 21–23 were denied for inadequate written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find that the parties’ proposals are not materially different despite minor differences in wording between them (e.g., “at least two years” of “industry experience, including in consumer electronics, graphical user interfaces, cable or satellite television systems, set-top boxes, multimedia systems, or programmable remote controls” under Petitioner’s proposal, as opposed to “two years” of “work experience relating to communications or consumer electronics” under Patent Owner’s proposed definition). See Pet. 15; MTA 8; RMTA 15. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. These proposals are similar for all purposes relevant to this Final Written Decision, and both are consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected in the disclosure of the ’514 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Nonetheless, for this Final Written Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention. Our analysis and conclusions in this Final Written Decision would be the same regardless of whether Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art is adopted.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that no construction is necessary in this proceeding. Pet. 15. Based on the full record, for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we determine no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“contends, citing the testimony of Mr. Tinsman, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Seidel with Caris because Seidel suggests using remote control key presses to initiate the remote control programming process and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Caris for its explicit description of a remote control with a “dedicated button” used to initiate a remote control set-up process. Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 119–126; Ex. 1005, 12:30–35, 12:67–13:2, 13:48–64; Ex. 1006, 5:17–24, 5:47–6:3). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that implementing the dedicated button would have provided the user with a simple and efficient way to initiate the remote control programming process. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). According to Petitioner, combining Caris’s dedicated button with Seidel would have furthered “Seidel’s express goals of facilitating the ease of programming and minimizing user frustration” and “enabling the set-top control unit 110 to ‘interact with the user to improve the accuracy, efficiency and/or simplicity of detecting the particular mode code.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 3:54–58, 13:48–50; Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). In addition, Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Seidel with Caris because “[b]oth Seidel and Caris use common and similar remote controls to perform similar operations.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124– 126). Petitioner further argues that it would have been obvious to combine Caris’s remote control having a dedicated button with Seidel because “combining Seidel with Caris would have resulted in merely combining known elements to yield predictable results.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 124–126). Based on the complete record and for the reasons explained by Petitioner, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently the combination of Seidel and Caris teaches all recitations of claim 3. We also find that Petitioner articulates sufficient rationale for combining the respective teachings of Seidel and Caris in the manner proposed by Petitioner to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 3. Having weighed each of the Graham factors, including the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the challenged claim, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Seidel and Caris.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyOther
“Based on the complete record and for the reasons explained by Petitioner, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficiently the combination of Seidel and Caris teaches all recitations of claim 3. We also find that Petitioner articulates sufficient rationale for combining the respective teachings of Seidel and Caris in the manner proposed by Petitioner to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 3. Having weighed each of the Graham factors, including the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the challenged claim, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Seidel and Caris.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,969,514 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,969,514
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.