• Apple Inc. v. Paul PoniatowskiInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2024-00731 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 based on a reasonable likelihood that Wang, Dua, and Yong render them obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–6, 8–13, 15–20, and 22–27 of the ’578 patent on the sole ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner argues a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent with one to two years of experience in the field of mobile transactions.” Pet. 8 (citing Bederson Decl. ¶¶ 35–37). Petitioner adds that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Id. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept this assessment offered by Petitioner, as it is supported by Dr. Bederson’s testimony and appears consistent with the ’578 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need” slip op. at 7

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

    “scanner, reader, or camera” that is aimed at a barcode or special code of a product, the price of which is then added to the retail bill. Pet. 10–11 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–49, 9:5–11). According to Petitioner, the Specification does not elaborate further on the meaning of the term “information concerning prices of goods.” Id. at 11. Petitioner, thus, interprets the term to encompass scenarios in which price information is received directly or indirectly. Id. Petitioner notes that during prosecution of the ’578 patent, the Examiner rejected this limitation over prior art, stating that prior art “sends the scanned bar code information to the server,” which “then preferably returns a description of the item and information,” and “[t]his item description and price information is displayed on the telephone’s display.” Id. at 12 (quoting Ex. 1002, 231). According to Petitioner, this is an example of indirectly receiving information concerning the prices of goods as it comes from a queried server, not from the item itself. Id. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner never disputed, and in fact, made statements supporting that these actions were encompassed by the claim limitation. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 214). We agree with Petitioner that nothing in the claim language or the Specification requires that the claimed optical input receive information concerning the prices of goods directly from the goods themselves. Thus, on this record, we preliminarily construe the term “receiving information concerning the prices of goods” to encompass receiving pricing information from a server.” slip op. at 9

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “In an inter partes review, the burden is on the petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). With respect to entitlement to any earlier effective filing date, however, a patent owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications that do not share the same disclosure, such as in a continuation-in-part situation. See PowerOasis, Inc. v. T–Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305–06 (Fed.Cir.2008) (stating that once a defendant establishes that a reference is § 102(b) prior art, burden is on patent owner to come forward with evidence proving priority to an earlier filing date).” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,270,578
• The Boeing Company v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaInstituted
  PTAB · Oct 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00761 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–24 on 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

    “determine whether to institute review. Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence before us, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’684 Patent. The Petition is granted, and inter partes review is instituted. A scheduling order will follow this decision.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “as of the time of the invention of the ’684 Patent “would have had an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering or a related field, and at least five years of experience using laser systems to characterize and test mechanical behavior in materials.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner “generally agrees” with this definition. Prelim. Resp. 26. At this juncture, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 5 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Because the ’684 Patent was filed before March 16, 2013 (the effective date of the relevant amendments), the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we find that the above noted evidence comprises “evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that [Wang] qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13. Patent Owner raises a number of questions about Petitioner’s showing. First, Patent Owner contends that the Morris Declaration “is not credible or legally sufficient for various reasons,” including a lack of corroborating evidence. Prelim. Resp. 28–30 (citing, inter alia, Finnigan Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 180 F.3d 1354, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Nonetheless, Ms. Morris’s testimony at least is consistent with the indicators of publication appearing in the front matter of Wang. See Ex. 1005, 1, 3–6 (added page numbers). As such, we find Ms. Morris’s testimony sufficiently reliable to support a reasonable likelihood that Wang would qualify as a prior art printed publication. At trial, the parties can develop the record about whether, and, if so, the extent to which, testimony regarding publication by a non-inventor witness must be corroborated with other evidence.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted

    “f) Enablement of Wang In order for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim, that reference must enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed subject matter. PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“To anticipate a claim, a reference must disclose every element of the challenged claim and enable one skilled in the art to make the anticipating subject matter.”) Enablement of a prior art reference does not require that the prior art reference show that the disclosed subject matter would have utility; that is, that it would work for any particular purpose. Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005). (“[T]his court has continued to recognize that a prior art reference need not demonstrate utility in order to serve as an anticipating reference under section 102.”), In re Schoenwald, 964 F.2d 1122, 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[I]t is beyond argument that no utility need be disclosed for a reference to be anticipatory.”) All that matters is whether the skilled person could have made the claimed subject matter, without undue experimentation. In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Enablement of prior art requires that the reference teach a skilled artisan to make or carry out what it discloses in relation to the claimed invention.”) (emphasis added). Even references that disclose inoperative devices are still prior art for all that they teach. Id. (citing Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Therefore, questions of whether the prior art may teach away from making the claimed subject matter are not relevant to anticipation. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Lab’ys, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Thus, the question whether a reference ‘teaches away’ from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.”)” slip op. at 23

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,487,684
• Google LLC v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01313 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 19, 20, and 51 based on the asserted obviousness ground over Houston, Garcia, and Wu.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us. We understand the “at least” phrase to indicate that a POSITA would have a minimum of 2 years of experience in the field of software development and do not agree with Patent Owner that including such minimum makes the proposed definition improperly indefinite. For purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s statement as our definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 9

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

    “At this stage, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Houston and Garcia teach the required synchronization of folder metadata. Given that the ’215 patent provides no explanation of what is meant by synchronizing folder metadata, we construe that requirement as encompassing synchronization of the metadata of files contained in a folder. Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments currently of record, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has satisfied its burden for claim element 1o.” slip op. at 37

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

    “We agree that Patent Owner’s contention that Garcia is directed to actions taken by a single user at a single client device is inconsistent with Garcia’s description of a system “for enabling a user to synchronize, manage, and share files and folders across a plurality of client devices and a synchronization server.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Nor are Patent Owner’s other attorney arguments persuasive. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not point to aspects of the cited references that meet this criterion. “[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive as relying on an alleged inability to modify the specific implementations disclosed in Houston in light of Garcia. However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 425) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). Patent Owner’s attorney arguments are not persuasive evidence that the proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner cites” slip op. at 29

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “those raised in the Dropbox litigation, because Garcia is not included in that litigation. With respect to Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner deliberately decided not to do a full Sotera stipulation,”11 we highlight that in Sand Revolution II, the panel found Petitioner’s stipulation that it would not pursue in district court litigation the same grounds as those asserted in the IPR “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts” and “weighs marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 11–12 (June 16, 2020) (informative). Also, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that NXP USA does not allow stipulations after the Petition is filed. NXP USA states that “the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation . . . is prior to the Board’s decision of whether to institute review” (NXP USA, Paper 13 at 4), which is the case here. Under these circumstances, we find that factor 4 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 47

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,044,215
• Google LLC v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2023 · IPR2022-01312 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claim 14 on the asserted § 103 ground over Houston and Garcia; the Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claim 14 of the ’737 patent on the sole ground of unpatentability asserted in the Petition (see infra § VI (asserted ground)).” slip op. at 2

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

    “We agree that Patent Owner’s contention that Garcia is directed to actions taken by a single user at a single client device is inconsistent with Garcia’s description of a system “for enabling a user to synchronize, manage, and share files and folders across a plurality of client devices and a synchronization server.” Ex. 1006, Abstract. Nor are Patent Owner’s other attorney arguments persuasive. A teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Patent Owner does not point to aspects of the cited references that meet this criterion. “[T]hat two inventions were designed to resolve different problems . . . is insufficient to demonstrate that one invention teaches away from another.” Nat’l Steel Car, Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ry., Ltd., 357 F.3d 1319, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive as relying on an alleged inability to modify the specific implementations disclosed in Houston in light of Garcia. However, “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“[c]ombining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art.”). Patent Owner’s attorney arguments are not persuasive evidence that the proffered combination of references would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we find Petitioner cites sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Houston, Garcia, and Wu as described above.” slip op. at 30

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We find that the unpatentability issue raised here, which is based on the combination of Houston and Garcia, does not overlap with those raised in the Dropbox litigation, because Garcia is not included in that litigation. With respect to Patent Owner’s contention that “Petitioner deliberately decided not to do a full Sotera stipulation9,” we highlight that in Sand Revolution II, the panel found Petitioner’s stipulation that it would not pursue in district court litigation the same grounds as those asserted in the IPR “mitigates to some degree the concerns of duplicative efforts” and “weighs marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group Trucking LLC, IPR201901393, Paper 24 at 11–12 (June 16, 2020) (informative). Also, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that NXP USA does not allow stipulations after the Petition is filed. NXP USA states that “the only appropriate time for a petitioner to offer a stipulation . . . is prior to the Board’s decision of whether to institute review” (NXP USA, Paper 13, 4), which is the case here. Under these circumstances, we find that factor 4 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 50

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached

    “We agree with Patent Owner that discovery is warranted to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish that the Petition is not time barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Prelim. Resp. 39–40. Accordingly, we entered an order for discovery concurrently with this Decision. Because discovery has not yet been completed, we will not resolve this issue before institution.” slip op. at 58

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,613,737
• Google LLC v. Motion Offense, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 2, 2023 · IPR2022-01311 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claim 16 under the § 103 ground based on Houston and Garcia, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combined teachings render the claim obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “IX. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of obviousness or nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “not involved.” Id. We find that the unpatentability issue raised here, which is based on the combination of Houston and Garcia, does not overlap with those raised in the Dropbox litigation, because Garcia is not included in that litigation.” slip op. at 41

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,303,353
• Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents Of The University Of CaliforniaAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 12, 2021 · IPR2020-00780 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–7, 9, 13, 14, 18–20, 22, and 26 are unpatentable based on anticipation by Okamoto or Miyahara and obviousness over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “construction requiring at least one lead to provide structural support to the LED chip. First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that the leads must form “the structural frame supporting the LED chip.” Sur-Reply 4. According to Patent Owner, “[o]n its face, the meaning is clear” that “‘lead frame’ is a frame formed by leads.” Id. We do not find this conclusory statement helpful in determining whether the leads in a lead frame are required to provide structural support to the LED chip. Patent Owner does not identify any evidence, intrinsic or extrinsic, that the plain meaning of the term “lead frame” requires that any leads provide direct or indirect support to the LED chip. In fact, Patent Owner refers to several dictionary definitions of the term “lead frame,” none of which makes any reference to support. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 1023, 4 (“Lead Frame. The metallic portion of a component package that is used to interconnect with semiconductor die by wire bonding and to provide output terminal leads.”); Ex. 1024, 4 (“lead frame— . . . 2. The metal part of a solid-state device package that achieves electrical connection between the die and other parts of the system of which the IC is a component. . . .); Ex. 1026, 3 (“lead frame the metallic portion of the device package that makes electrical connections from the die to other circuitry.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “The fundamental error in Petitioner’s argument on this point, however, is that the claims at issue in this proceeding do not require “a lead frame including a transparent plate,” but instead “a lead frame having a transparent plate therein.” Petitioner must do more than show that Okamoto discloses that “the transparent plate is part of the lead frame,” as argued in the Petition. And, as we pointed out in our Institution Decision, Petitioner concedes that “Okamoto’s lead frame sits on its transparent plate, rather than the transparent plate being in the lead frame.” Institution Dec. 17 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 34, 36). During the trial, Petitioner did not engage with this issue or provide any reason for us to diverge from our prior conclusion that, because “the plain language of the claims requires that the lead frame have a transparent plate ‘therein’ . . . [b]y Petitioner’s own admission . . . Okamoto does not anticipate.” Id. In other words, because Petitioner concedes that Okamoto’s transparent plate is not in its lead frame, it cannot meet the requirement of claims 1 and 14 that the lead frame have a transparent plate therein. For this reason, we maintain our prior determination that Okamoto does not disclose a lead frame having a transparent plate therein, and as a result, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 14 are anticipated.” slip op. at 23

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

    “Patent Owner also asserts that “Petitioner fails to explain how its proposed modification of wrapping the wiring pattern 6 around the ends of the substrate results in a lower-profile.” PO Resp. 17. According to Patent Owner, “Okamoto already provides the alleged lower-profile benefits of Shimizu, as seen by comparing figure 2 of each reference.” Id. at 18. But Dr. Dupuis supports Petitioner’s contention by stating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to use a “chip-type” package instead of a “lead-type” package in applications where a lower profile is needed. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 129–134 (citing Ex. 1017, 8:31–67; Ex. 1016, Fig. 1, 33–35; Ex. 1022, Figs. 1–3, 6–8, 13, ¶¶ 2–14). Also, Okamoto states that Figure 2 is “a planar view of the light source device of” Figure 1. Ex. 1008 ¶ 43. And Figure 1 of Okamoto, reproduced above, clearly shows protruding lead frame 8. Id. at Fig. 1, ¶ 29. Figure 2 of Okamoto, however, does not show lead frame 8. See id. at Fig. 2. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner that Figure 2 of Okamoto shows a package with a lower profile. Instead, the record supports Petitioner’s position that the modified device created using the disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu has a lower profile (i.e., leads wrapped around substrate 2 as opposed to protruding as shown by Okamoto Figures 1 and 8). See Pet. 42–43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 138–142. Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner ignores Dr. Schubert’s explanation that Shimizu was directed towards general illumination, while Okamoto is directed towards a signaling light source” so a person of ordinary skill would not combine the two references. Sur-Reply 16 (citing Ex. 1044, 93:15–96:13). Because we do not see this argument in Patent Owner’s Response, nor do we see anything in Dr. Schubert’s declaration to support such an argument, we do not agree that Petitioner improperly failed to respond to an argument. See PO Resp. 12–21; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 112–120. Moreover, we find that both Shimizu and Okamoto disclose methods of creating white light using an LED and, therefore, the evidence supports a finding that both references are relevant to a consideration of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“In order to rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of the applicant’s invention, the reference must either be in the field of the applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.”). In sum, on the complete record, we find that the combination of Okamoto and Shimizu teaches each limitation of claims 1 and 14, and we find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine Okamoto and Shimizu.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Upon further review, and in light of the arguments in Petitioner’s Reply (Reply 21–24), we conclude that our preliminary determination in the Institution Decision was in error, to the extent that we agreed with Patent Owner’s arguments that claims 13 and 26 require “all layers” of the LED to be transparent. The claims recite “a plurality of III-nitride layers, including an active region that emits light, wherein all of the layers except for the active region are transparent.” Ex. 1001, 21:46–52. The second half of this phrase, which contains the transparency requirement, recites “the layers,” meaning that it relies on an earlier recitation in the claim for antecedent basis of “layers.” This basis is found in the recitation of “a plurality of III-nitride layers.” In other words, the proper interpretation of “all of the layers” in claims 13 and 26 is that the term refers back to the III-nitride layers, not all of the layers of the LED as a whole (such as, for example, a mirror). And the parties agree that the mirror of a conventional LED is not a III-nitride layer. Tr. 18:15–18; 45:4–13. As a result, our preliminary determination that the non-transparent mirror of the APA LEDs prevented a finding of obviousness was incorrect. We agree with Petitioner that the ’916 patent admits that LEDs having transparent III-nitride layers were conventional in the art, and that these are “all of the layers except for the active region” as required in claims 13 and 26. Notably, during the trial Patent Owner did not attempt to defend against Petitioner’s ground for the same reason it raised in the Preliminary Response; instead, Patent Owner now argues that because of the mirror on conventional LEDs, these devices would not meet the claim limitation that “light is extracted effectively through all the layers.” PO Resp. 21. But this reflects a misunderstanding of Petitioner’s ground of unpatentability, which does not rely on the APA for this limitation. Petitioner’s ground is based on the argument that, while Okamoto discloses an LED without a mirror, it does not “specifically describe the layers of its blue LEDs, other than to say that it is a GaN-based LED.” Pet. 61. Petitioner turns to the APA for this missing information regarding the layers that were conventionally used in LEDs; but notably, the Petition does not rely on the APA’s mirror. Id. All Petitioner concludes from the APA is that a person of skill in the art “would reasonably expect the GaN-based LEDs of Okamoto to include multiple layers, which layers would at least include an active layer sandwiched between a p-side layer and an n-side layer.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 203– 205; Ex. 1001, 10:20–31). Patent Owner’s argument that the application of the APA’s layers to Okamoto would have brought along the mirror of the APA LED’s is therefore misguided and unpersuasive. In sum, we agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to conventional LEDs, such as those admitted to be prior art in the ’916 patent, when determining the layers of Okamoto’s LED. And according to the ’916 patent, these conventional III-nitride layers would have been understood to be transparent to an emission wavelength. As a result, we conclude that claims 13 and 26 would have been obvious over the combined disclosures of Okamoto and Shimizu in light of the APA.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,217,916 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,217,916
• Sonos, Inc. v. D&M Holdings Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 31, 2018 · IPR2017-01045 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request and left institution in place for claims 1–20 and 25–27.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “II. ANALYSIS Standard of Review When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, which includes specifically identifying all matters the party believes we misapprehended or overlooked. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Accordingly, after review of Patent Owner’s arguments in the Request for Rehearing, we remain of the opinion that Petitioner provided sufficient evidence and explanation to establish a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and thus we decline to change our Decision to institute inter partes review. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Patent Owner has not met its burden of showing an abuse of discretion in our Decision. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s request to reverse our determination to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner demonstrated that Lambourne ’853 is an issued patent (Pet. 13) that has a filing date of September 11, 2007 (Pet. 14), which is before the October 16, 2007 filing date of the ’294 patent (Ex. 1013). Thus, Petitioner established at least a prima facie case that Lambourne ’853 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). At this point, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the ’294 patent is entitled to its provisional application’s filing date of October 17, 2006. Patent Owner did not meet this burden of production, and accordingly, the burden of production never shifted back to the Petitioner to show Lambourne ’853 was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application, Lambourne ’407. Thus, we deny Patent Owner’s request for rehearing for this reason.” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “Applying these burdens to the present case, the ultimate burden of persuasion was on the Petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 claim based on the information presented. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioner also had the initial burden of production to provide argument and evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least 1 claim, and chose to do so by relying on Lambourne ’853 in addition to other prior art references. Petitioner demonstrated that Lambourne ’853 is an issued patent (Pet. 13) that has a filing date of September 11, 2007 (Pet. 14), which is before the October 16, 2007 filing date of the ’294 patent (Ex. 1013). Thus, Petitioner established at least a prima facie case that Lambourne ’853 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). At this point, the burden of production shifted to Patent Owner to show that the ’294 patent is entitled to its provisional application’s filing date of October 17, 2006. Patent Owner did not meet this burden of production, and accordingly, the burden of production never shifted back to the Petitioner to show Lambourne ’853 was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its provisional application, Lambourne ’407. Thus, we deny Patent Owner’s request for rehearing for this reason.” slip op. at 4

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,987,294
• Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. v. Novadaq Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 8, 2017 · IPR2015-01847 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: all are obvious over Yabe; claims 10, 12, and 14 are also anticipated by Krauter.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill Mr. Gunday testified, In my opinion, a person having ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the alleged invention is a person with a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics, Computer Engineering, Computer Science, or other similar degree, and two ([2]) to three (3) years of work experience relating to medical endoscopic imaging. Such a person would have had an understanding of, or experience in, designing, implementing, and using endoscopic imaging systems, including light sources and endoscopic video and image processing. Ex. 1011 ¶ 76. Mr. Jaggi agrees with Mr. Gunday’s opinion in this regard, adding only that degrees in “Electrical engineering or Engineering Physics” would each qualify as Mr. Gunday’s “other similar degree.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–54. We agree with and adopt the view of the parties regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Initially, we note bodily incorporation of the features of the embodiments is not the test of obviousness; rather, the test lies in what is taught or suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan by the proposed combination of embodiments of Yabe. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. Yabe discloses multiple embodiments and expressly discloses interchangeability of rotary (“surface-sequential-type”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s second embodiment (Figure 2) and mosaic (“built-in”) filters as disclosed in Yabe’s first and third embodiments (Figures 1a and 10). Ex. 1007, 18:17–21. Yabe’s express disclosures outweigh the unsupported assertions of Patent Owner’s expert regarding the complexity of constructing the proposed combination of embodiments. “Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, we are persuaded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the embodiments of Yabe, as proposed by Petitioner, “because it would serve the same purpose as the existing rotary filter/CCD arrangement and lead to predictable results.” See Pet. 20; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 28

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

    “We are disinclined to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of this phrase, as recited in claim 1, to require mathematical manipulation. Claim 1 recites “calculates” in a self-defining manner, specifically reciting calculating the image signals “by minimizing the contribution from signals produced by the image sensor in response to red illumination light.” Thus, claim 1 is clear on its face that the calculation to be performed is by minimizing the contribution from red light. Therefore, our analysis shifts to determining the meaning of “minimizing” as recited in claim 1. The ’151 patent discloses a variety of embodiments for “minimizing” the contribution of red light.5 For example, in support of the Patent Owner’s 5 Additionally we observe that “minimizing” appears only once in the ’151 patent—in claim 1 (and, thereby, also in its dependent claims 2–9). construction, the ’151 patent does disclose exemplary embodiments that minimize red light contribution utilizing mathematical manipulations including, for example, CMYG filter computations that are “considered to be well known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Ex. 1001, 4:66–7:59) and averaging blue and green signals to “compute” a cyan signal (id. at 4:21–24). The ’151 patent, however, also specifically recites, Because the passbands of the red mosaic filters do not significantly overlap with the pass bands of the other filters for a short wavelength imaging mode, the contribution of the image signals due to red illumination light can be reduced or largely eliminated by not assigning the image signals produced by image sensor pixels that are sensitive to red light to their corresponding display pixels. Id. at 4:5–12 (emphasis added). The ’151 patent further states “a short wave-length image (or the color components of such an image) can be computed from a subset of image sensor signals (i.e. excluding the signal data from red light).” Id. at 8:29–32 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’151 patent also encompasses the contribution of red light in the image being” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Although the ’151 patent does not address “analog” or “digital” in reference to “memory,” we agree with Patent Owner, based primarily on the cross-examination testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Gunday, that the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the ’151 patent filing would have understood “memory,” in the context of the ’151 patent, to be referring to digital memory rather than analog buffers. The signals stored in Krauter’s analog buffers are transitory, analog signals propagating from circuits that calculate a value, through the analog buffer, to an analog input of a display monitor. We are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have considered such analog buffers to be a memory in the context of the ’151 patent. Thus, we determine “memory,” as recited in claim 1, means any digital memory capable of storing image signals that minimize the contribution of red light.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,420,151 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,420,151
• Arris International PLC / Pace Ltd. et al. v. Sony CorporationRehearing denied
  PTAB · Jan 30, 2017 · IPR2016-00834 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Sony’s rehearing request, leaving institution in place because the “reproducing means” in claims 5 and 8 was not shown to be computer-implemented and need not include algorithmic structure.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” which party “must specifically identify all matters the party 1 Section 4(c) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 4(c), 125 Stat. 284 (2011), re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 as 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Because the ’676 patent has a filing date before the September 16, 2012, effective date of the statute, we refer to the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112. believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “reproducing means for reproducing the audio data of the channel designated by the default value stored in the storing means,” as recited in claims 5 and 8 of the ’676 patent (the “reproducing means” limitations). Inst. Dec. 12–16. In particular, we agreed with the parties that the reproducing means limitations are written in means-plus-function format pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and that the function of the reproducing means is “reproducing the audio data of the channel designated by the default value stored in the storing means.” Id. at 10, 12–13 (citing Pet. 16; Prelim. Resp. 4). We also agreed with Petitioner’s identification of “synthesizer 11” and “controller 13” as being the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification for the reproducing means limitations. Id. at 12–13, 16. We disagreed, however, with Patent Owner’s assertion that the structure of the reproducing means must further include an algorithm disclosed in the specification, as would be required for a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation. Id. at 13–14 (citing Prelim. Resp. 1, 2, 8). We concluded, therefore, that the reproducing means limitations are, accordingly, properly construed under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 to cover “a controller and a synthesizer, or the equivalent.” ANALYSIS In the Institution Decision, we determined that the ’676 patent discloses a controller and a synthesizer, neither of which is disclosed in the ’676 patent as being computer-implemented, as structure corresponding to the “reproducing means” recited in claims 5 and 8. Inst. Dec. 14–15. As we explained, “synthesizer 11 and controller 13 both are shown and described in the ’676 patent as discrete hardware elements that interface with other hardware elements of the described information reproducing devices.” Id. at 14. We determined, accordingly, that the reproducing means recited in claims 5 and 8 is not a “computer-implemented” means-plus-function term subject to “the legal rule that computer-implemented means-plus-function terms must be construed to include the corresponding algorithmic structure disclosed in the specification.” Id.; cf. Reh’g Req. 2. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions (Reh’g Req. 1–2), we did not determine in the Institution Decision that “unless a claim recites the terms ‘computer’ or ‘microprocessor,’ it is not computer-implemented”; that “the claimed controller is not a computer based solely on a word matching exercise”; or that the Board “is free to disregard the law on how computer-implemented means-plus-function terms are to be construed.” Patent Owner’s arguments in its Request for Rehearing do not persuade us of any error in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Because, on this record, we conclude that the reproducing means limitations of claims 5 and 8 are not properly construed to include “algorithmic structure,” we also disagree with Patent Owner’s further argument that “[b]ecause Petitioners failed to consider the algorithmic structure corresponding to the ‘reproducing means’ and thus failed to compare the ‘reproducing means’ as properly construed to the prior art for structural equivalency, the Board should have denied institution as to all claims with that term.” Id. at 10. We accordingly deny Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing. Additionally, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge declines” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction
  Patents in suitUS 6,097,676
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 10, 2016 · CBM2015-00132 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exception

    “We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.” Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.” Furthermore, as discussed above, the ’772 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:23–57. The patent specification explains that these pirates obtain data either by unauthorized or legitimate means and then make the data available over the Internet without authorization. Id. The specification further explains that once data has been published on the Internet, it is difficult to police access to and use of it by Internet users who may not even realize that it is pirated. Id. The ’772 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a portable data carrier based upon payment validation. Id. at 1:61–2:3. The ’772 patent makes clear that the crux of the claimed subject matter is restricting access to stored content based on validation of payment. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive concept

    “2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Petitioner has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772

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.