• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00989 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Petitioner did not establish a motivation to combine Yagiura and Shimasaki.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless clerical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1101, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “The Petition argues that all claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute this. PO Resp. 13. We determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Hanwha Solutions Corporation / Hanwha Q Cells USA, Inc. v. Rec Solar Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2022 · IPR2021-00988 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Huang and Wu; claims 1, 2, and 4 are also anticipated by Zhang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Petitioner’s position is persuasive. We agree that documents from the Japanese Patent Office are self-authenticating official government documents. The technical issues regarding missing pages in the originally filed version of the document do not cause us to question authenticity. We also agree that Petitioner uses the documents to establish what the documents teach rather than establishing the truth of what the documents teach. In Reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner relies on the date printed on the document to prove up the truth of when the document was published. Mot. Excl. Reply 1–2. To the extent this is the case, an exception to hearsay applies because the document is a record of a public office. Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(B) (a record of public office is an exception to the hearsay rule if the opponent does not show that the source of information or other circumstances “indicate a lack of trustworthiness”). Here, Patent Owner does not persuasively demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness; Patent Owner does not identify any substantively meaningful distinction in the missing pages of the originally filed document and does not identify any evidence to suggest that the missing pages were anything more than a harmless technical error. For the reasons above, Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied with respect to these documents. B.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s proposal is too broad. PO Resp. 8. For example, a person who merely installs solar panels for three years (satisfying “professional experience in solar energy”) while having some familiarity with module manufacturing would not be of ordinary skill in the design aspects of the ’060 patent as, for example, reflected by the claims at issue and the ’060 patent’s text and figures. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 3:22–7:44. On the other hand, we also determine that Patent Owner’s proposal is too narrow. A person could, for example, have ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent by virtue of non-professional experience (for example, academic experience). When assessing relevant experience, research work done for a university (beyond mere classroom study) would have been just as valuable as research work done for a corporation. Also, ordinary skill in the art could be demonstrated by work that requires understanding of the ’060 patent’s field even if not “designing, developing, and/or researching” in the field itself. We, thus, determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’060 patent would have been someone with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like, and at least two years of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or (b) experience in solar energy that required an understanding of the ’060 patent’s field. Alternatively, that person would have had an advanced degree in electrical engineering, applied physics, or the like and at least one year of (a) experience designing, developing, and/or researching in the field or 7 Our analysis is constrained to the extent neither party addresses the Best Medical factors with particularity. For example, the briefing does not address the educational level of the inventor. patent’s field.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We next assess whether or not Dr. Kimball’s testimony properly qualifies as evidence in this matter. The Federal Circuit has held that expert testimony about the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art (as Dr. Kimball provides here) must come from a person having at least ordinary skill in the art. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1376–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1362, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (holding that ITC Administrative Law Judge abused discretion by admitting expert testimony of witness who lacked the experience of a person having ordinary skill in the art); see Mot. Excl. 6–7 (arguing this point). Patent Owner, however, cites no authority that expert testimony on such matters come from a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Cf. Scentair Tech., LLC v. Prolitiec Inc., IPR2021-00012, Paper 22 at 61 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2022) (similarly noting a party’s lack of authority on this point). Beyond needing to come from a person of ordinary skill in the art, expert testimony is admissible if the expert has the “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge [that] will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed. R. Evid. 702. Furthermore, “[t]here is … no requirement of a perfect match between the expert’s experience and the relevant field.” USPTO, Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 34 (Nov. 2019). Here, Petitioner adequately establishes that Dr. Kimball qualifies as a” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues, however, that where claim 4 recites “the first and second solar cell series are coupled with the bypass diode of the first solar cell unit via a first cross-connector, and the third and fourth solar series are coupled with the bypass diode of the second solar cell unit via a second cross-connector,” the word “a” means “one.” PO Resp. 13–14. In particular, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art via one or more cross-connectors” and that “a” meaning “one” in claim 4 is necessary for claim 4 to further limit claim 1. Id. Petitioner argues that “a” means “one or more.” Pet. Reply 2–4. We agree with Petitioner. The ’040 patent explicitly defines “a” consistently with Petitioner’s position by stating that “it should be noted that the term ‘comprising’ does not exclude other elements or steps and the ‘a’ or ‘an’ does not exclude a plurality.” Ex. 1001, 7:62–63. The ’040 patent’s explicit definition is consistent with typical usage of “a” in this patent law context. See, e.g., KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (explaining that “a” in patent parlance means “one or more” for open-ended claims reciting the transitional phrase “comprising”). Patent Owner’s argument regarding claim construction is unpersuasive because Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by explicitly requiring first and second crossconnectors; claim 1 does not recite a “cross-connector.” Ex. 1001, 8:2–22. Thus, we construe “a” in this context as meaning “one or more.”” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,060 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,060
• Sani-Tech West, Inc. v. Meissner Filtration Products, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2022 · IPR2022-01123 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious, principally for failing to explain why a skilled artisan would add hose barbs.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that each limitation in a challenged claim was independently known in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Rather, a patent challenger must articulate a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified the prior art. Id. at 418. Because Petitioner has failed to articulate a reason to modify Goebel to include the claimed hose barbs, there is no reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–8 would have been obvious over Goebel.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “as Patent Owner argues, that Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have attached hose barbs to the ends of Goebel’s pipe coupling 14. See Prelim. Resp. 15, 17. Indeed, other than asserting that hose barbs were well-known, Petitioner only refers to Goebel for “indicat[ing] that the hose to which it is connected at each end may be secured using a clamp.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:60–2:3, claim 3). Without any explanation of its relevance to hose barbs by either Petitioner or Mr. Clem, however, we decline to speculate the significance of this teaching. Obviousness requires more than a mere showing that each limitation in a challenged claim was independently known in the prior art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Rather, a patent challenger must articulate a reason why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified the prior art. Id. at 418. Because Petitioner has failed to articulate a reason to modify Goebel to include the claimed hose barbs, there is no” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundDecided for patent owner

    “In fact, Petitioner’s argument appears to support the opposite conclusion. According to Petitioner, “barb fittings are known by POSAs to be particularly poorly suited to sterile and aseptic processing because they incorporate pockets where bacteria and contaminants may reside.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). This statement appears consistent with Maurer’s teaching. Indeed, Maurer teaches “it is advantageous if the design avoids the creation of cavities or pockets in which contaminated material can collect.” Ex. 1005, 14:16–18. This is especially important because, as Petitioner points out, Maurer envisions using its device “in pressure measurement in kidney dialysis machines.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract, 14:6–20). Given Maurer’s goal to avoid contamination (see Ex. 1005, 1:24–31, 8:33–36, 9:50–56), and Petitioner’s acknowledgement that barb fittings are “particularly poorly suited to sterile and aseptic processing because they incorporate pockets where bacteria and contaminants may reside” (Pet. 46–47), we find Petitioner has not explained sufficiently why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have incorporated hose barbs into Maurer’s device. Thus, there is no reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claim 1 would have been obvious over Maurer and Milton.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,373,825
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. LBT IP II LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00926 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 8–10 and 13–15 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and related positioning techniques.” Pet. 8 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–28, 33). Patent Owner disputes that “two years of work experience is a necessary requirement” for a person of ordinary skill in the art, but Patent Owner nonetheless states that this “distinction is not meaningful or determinative with respect to the issues raised in the petition.” Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–35). Patent Owner does not otherwise offer a different definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We further note that Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Koskinen, applies Petitioner’s definition in his declaration. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the two instances of “at least,” which introduce ambiguity. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’289 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “On the preliminary record, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the “first identification code” must identify the device to be tracked. As acknowledged by Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 22), the Specification of the ’289 patent describes identification codes for both the first tracking device and for a user.3 See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:65–8:49. We also see no indication in 3 We note that the ordinal numbers (i.e., “first” and “second”) applied to “identification code” in the Specification do not necessary track the ordinal the Specification that the recited “first identification code” must be limited to these two possibilities. Thus, we decline to limit the “first identification code” in the manner suggested by Patent Owner, and we instead apply the plain and ordinary meaning to this term. We encourage the parties to address the interpretation of “first identification code” at trial to the extent they do not agree with our preliminary determination. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., 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 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied

    “In summary, all but one of the General Plastic factors either weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution or are neutral. The other factor favors discretionary denial only marginally. Ultimately, we find that the different petitioner entities and the mere three-day gap between the petitions blunt Patent Owner’s suggestion that the instant petition somehow represents an abusive or unfair serial petition. Therefore, based on the present record, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under § 314(a).” slip op. at 14

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “Director may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). The Board uses a two-part framework in determining whether to exercise its discretion under § 325(d), specifically: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). Petitioner’s arguments under § 325(d) are based on its allegations of “substantial overlap relating to Robert” and the two petitioners’ “nearly identical” arguments with respect to secondary references in combination with Robert. Prelim. Resp. 12–13. Yet, even if we were to assume that Patent Owner satisfies the first stage of the Advanced Bionics framework, Patent Owner cannot satisfy the second stage because the Office has not yet adjudicated the prior art and/or arguments that Patent Owner contends are the same or substantially the same. As such, Patent Owner cannot show that the Office “erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” For this reason, and based on the present record, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review under § 325(d).” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,531,289
• Uber Technologies Inc. v. LBT IP II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00927 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Applying that standard, and upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claim. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review of the ’355 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Altman and Bliss teaches or suggests claim element 1[B](ii), and accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable over the proffered combination. Claim element 1[B](ii), in relevant part, recites “providing a graphical mapping module comprising menu options . . . comprising one or more tile mapping controls as part of a wizard menu enabling [a] user to reposition graphical mapping tiles . . . from multiple mapping service providers.” Ex. 1001, 24:21–27. We agree with Patent Owner that the prior art cited by Petitioner (including not only Altman and Bliss—and by incorporation, Rasmussen—that are express members of the asserted ground, but also the tertiary Nachman and Diem references not identified by Petitioner as being part of the asserted combination) does not teach or suggest “reposition[ing] graphical mapping tiles . . . from multiple mapping service providers.” Prelim. Resp. 27–30. This deficiency is fatal to the asserted ground. improperly conflate Altman’s and Bliss’s disclosure of multiple potential storage locations for map data with the multiple providers recited in claim 1, and similarly conflate Rasmussen’s, Nachman’s, and Diem’s disclosure of the mere existence of multiple providers with enabling a user to reposition graphical mapping tiles from multiple mapping service providers, as recited in claim 1. Id. As Patent Owner points out, for example (see Prelim. Resp. 29), one of the two paragraphs of Rasmussen cited by Petitioner, taken from the “Background” section of the application, merely states, in relevant part, that Microsoft’s “TerraServer USA site” was, at the time of Rasmussen’s disclosure, using “a tiling approach for displaying satellite images” (Ex. 1016 ¶ 12), while the second cited paragraph, in an entirely separate section of the reference, describing an embodiment of Rasmussen’s own alleged invention with no indication of any connection to the Microsoft TerraServer USA site mentioned in the Background, discloses the use of “commercially available NavTech data that has been compiled by Telcontar . . . into RMF (Rich Map Format) files” that can in a subsequent step be used to make map tiles (id. ¶ 73). Petitioner cites and we find no disclosure in Rasmussen of any additional provider’s data being used along with the cited NavTech data to make map tiles, let alone “reposition[ing] graphical mapping tiles . . . from multiple mapping service providers,” as recited in claim 1. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s and Mr. Andrews’s conclusory characterizations of “using ‘multiple mapping service providers’” as a “simple implementation detail” that “would have been obvious since such third party service providers were well-known and provided the exact features that Altman seeks to include in its maps” (Pet. 33–34; Ex. 1002 would have taught or suggested the claimed method in which a user is enabled to reposition map tiles from multiple service providers, absent hindsight knowledge provided by the ’355 patent itself. See, e.g., InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It appears that [the expert] relied on the [] patent itself as her roadmap for putting what she referred to as pieces of a ‘jigsaw puzzle’ together.”); Sensonics, Inc. v. Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1983)) (“To draw on hindsight knowledge of the patented invention, when the prior art does not contain or suggest that knowledge, is to use the invention as a template for its own reconstruction—an illogical and inappropriate process by which to determine patentability.”).” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Mr. Andrews’s declaration regarding element 1[B](ii) is entitled to little weight, given that they merely repeat nearly verbatim the corresponding section of the Petition and are no less conclusory. See Prelim. Resp. 30–31; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); 4 Busch, US 2008/0248815 A1, published Oct. 9, 2008 (Ex. 2005). non-trivial difference we find between Mr. Andrews’s declaration and the Petition is that, in paragraph 125 of the declaration, Mr. Andrews offers testimony that “different map providers have different geographic areas of emphasis, so as the user moved from place to place the system may obtain maps tile data from providers who specialize in maps for that geographic area, and this would necessitate obtaining map data from different providers for different geographic areas.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 125. The only support Mr. Andrews provides for that testimony, however, is a citation to the same disclosure in Nachman as cited in the Petition and discussed above that fails to teach or suggest mapping tiles from multiple mapping service providers. See id. (citing Ex. 1041 ¶ 76).” slip op. at 34

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 28). Patent Owner “does not agree that two years of research, design, development, and/or testing experience specific to GPS or related location tracking techniques is a necessary requirement” to be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but contends, nonetheless, that “that distinction is not meaningful or determinative with respect to the issues raised in the Petition, and thus [is] not addressed.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 38). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art without the phrase “at least,” which we find introduces ambiguity. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’355 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,224,355
• Uber Technologies, Inc. v. LBT IP II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2022 · IPR2022-00879 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 8–21 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2022). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential).” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and related positioning techniques, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “explains this calculation in any further detail, or explains anything about this calculation as it relates to what standard GPS receivers do when calculating position.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79). But Petitioner’s complaints here implicate whether the ’724 patent provides sufficient written description or enablement of the invention defined by claim 13, i.e., issues that are beyond the scope of this inter partes review. Petitioner then concludes, based only on the foregoing: “Therefore, the sole basis for patentability is obvious in view of well-known techniques using standard GPS receivers.” Pet. 8. Petitioner’s declarant makes these same (conclusory) statements verbatim, without more, and with no further explanation or additional citations to evidence. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–79; Prelim. Resp. 22. We give such conclusory, unsupported assertions by Petitioner’s expert little or no weight. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he Board is entitled to weigh the declarations and conclude that the lack of factual corroboration warrants discounting the opinions expressed in the declarations.”); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Brotech Corp., 127 F.3d 1089, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting that a fact finder is not required to “credit the unsupported assertions of an expert witness”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Thus, as discussed above, we find Petitioner’s arguments unpersuasive.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and 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) (stating that “we need only construe 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 12

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,728,724
• Globalfoundries Inc. / Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. et al. v. Katana Silicon Technologies LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2022 · IPR2022-01083 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of any challenged claims on any ground asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

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

    “it is used consistently throughout. First, in describing related prior art, the ’903 patent states that “[t]he through plug is constituted of an insulating material covering a sidewall of a through hole and a low electrical resistance metal material . . . in a columnar shape that is positioned so as to be surrounded by the insulating material and that serves as a conductive member.” Ex. 1001, 1:35–40. In describing its own drawings, reference numeral 15 consistently is used to refer to the “through plug.” Id. at 2:37– 52. Figures 1A and 1B “are views schematically showing the structure of a semiconductor device (semiconductor chip) according to an embodiment of the present invention.” Id. at 5:46–48, Figs. 1A, 1B. In these figures, reference numeral 15 refers to “[a] through plug.” Id. at 6:16. This through plug “is constituted of a columnar electric conductor 15a . . . and an insulation layer 15b . . . surrounding the electric conductor 15a.” Id. at 6:21–25. Similarly, reference numeral 15 refers to the “through plug” in Figures 1C, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7A, and 7B. Id. at 6:35–40, 7:10–38, 8:10– 17, 8:32–38, 8:65–9:43. Where it is referred to in these same parts of the ’903 patent, the conductive core is discussed as merely a portion of the through plug and is referred to by the reference numeral 15a. Id. Thus, the ’903 patent consistently defines the through plug as having two portions: both a conductive core and a surrounding insulation layer. This is true whether the patent is referring to either of its disclosed embodiments or the prior art. Based on this unambiguous usage, we determine that the ’903 patent defines the term “through plug” as including both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320–21 (“the specification ‘acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication’” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996))).” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded that the Petition adequately identifies how Christensen teaches or suggests a through plug as that term is used in the ’903 patent. As noted above, the ’903 patent requires a through plug to have both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. It is clear on the current record that Christensen’s “conductive stud” could correspond to the conductive portion of such a through plug. Ex. 1033, 4:66–5:1 (“the stud 34 may comprise any number of conductive materials”). But Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Christensen teaches or suggests the surrounding insulating layer necessary to turn the conductive core into a through plug. First, Petitioner does not allege that Christensen teaches or suggests such a layer. Pet. 33–34. Second, Christensen discloses the use of “conductive materials” and “material[s] which promote[] adhesion to the surrounding oxide such as titanium or titanium nitride.” Ex. 1033, 4:66–5:1, 5:15–20. None of these materials are identified by Christensen as insulators. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Christensen alone teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims. b. Christensen and Lin Petitioner also argues that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims. Pet. 34–36. Specifically, Petitioner argues that “[t]o the extent [it is determined] that Christensen alone is not sufficient because the conductive stud 34 does not extend all the way through wafer 12, Christensen in view of Lin renders obvious a ‘through plug.’” Id. at 34. According to this argument, “Lin teaches a backside process for forming ‘a conductive plug through a silicon’ wafer and an insulation layer,” and it would have been obvious to form such a plug “from the backside of the wafer 12 below [Christensen’s] conductive stud 34,” such that the combination of the two structures would form a conductive path all the way through the structure of Christensen’s Figures 8B and 9. Id. at 34–35 (emphasis omitted). As with the argument based on Christensen alone, however, this argument does not show sufficiently that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests a through plug that has both a conductive core and a surrounding insulating layer. Lin describes its structure as a “conductive plug” and does not describe any insulation surrounding that structure. Ex. 1054, 1:60–64, 3:2– 34, 4:23–32, Fig. 7. “The conductive plugs” of Lin “typically compris[e] metal,” which Lin does not describe as an insulator. Id. at 3:21–25. Nor does Petitioner allege the presence of a conductive core surrounded by insulation either in Lin itself or in the combination of Lin and Christensen. Pet. 34–36. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Christensen and Lin teaches or suggests the through plug of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found

    “An invention is not obvious just ‘because all of the elements that comprise the invention were known in the prior art.’” Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., 732 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Instead, “a finding of obviousness at the time of invention requires a ‘plausible rational[e] as to why the prior art references would have worked together.’” Id. (quoting Power-One, 599 F.3d at 1352). This rationale requires “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine the known elements in the manner required in the claim at issue. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). “[I]t can be important to” include within this reasoning “a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. Here, Petitioner offers two reasons to combine the teachings of Shim and Shirakawa. First, Petitioner argues that “Shim’s diffusion teachings would facilitate the formation of” Shirakawa’s collector layer. Pet. 65–66. On the present record, we do not find this reason sufficiently persuasive. Even though Shim does teach a way to make the n-GaAs that Shirakawa uses, Shirakawa teaches a different way to make the same material, and other prior-art references agree with Shirakawa. Ex. 1022, 1:34–40 (“silicon ions of a silicon layer formed on a GaAs substrate are diffused by means of ion-implantation method using little energy and annealing treatment”); Ex. 1005, 9:36–42 (first embodiment “collector layer” is “laminated on top of a semi-insulating GaAs substrate . . . by epitaxial growth process”), 12:47–48 (fourth embodiment made in same way as first embodiment); Ex. 1016, 8:7–19 (“a highly doped n type GaAs subcollector layer . . . [and other layers] are made to grow above a semiinsulating GaAs substrate . . . by a metal organic vapor phase epitaxial growth method”); Ex. 1025, 4:40–45 (teaching “[f]orming two flat epitaxial layers of gallium arsenide to obtain [a] collector,” including “a layer . . . of the n+ conductivity type and a layer . . . of the n -conductivity type” by “epitaxial growth . . . from the vapour phase or from the liquid phase”). The mere fact that Shim offers an alternative process does not, in the absence of a reason to adopt that alternative process, provide a reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make Shirakawa’s n-GaAs via Shim’s method rather than via Shirakawa’s own method. In addition, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Peter Elenius, testifies that the ion implantation involved in Shim’s diffusion process would damage Shirakawa’s gallium arsenide in a way that would dissuade a person of ordinary skill in the art from using that process to produce the HBT of Shirakawa. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–57. The other reason that Petitioner provides to combine the teachings of Shim and Shirakawa is that Shim’s diffusion “method us[es] little energy and annealing treatment.” Pet. 66 (quoting Ex. 1022, 1:34–40). Shim’s method is described as “diffus[ion] by means of ion-implantation method using little energy and annealing treatment,” which Shim distinguishes from earlier methods “widely used in the art,” which involved “ion-implantation . . . using high energy.” Ex. 1022, 1:12–40. Shim teaches that its lower-energy ion implantation does not suffer from the “problem” of the earlier method, “damaging of ohmic contacts of metal electrodes” due to the injection of “lots of impurity ions.” Id. at 1:17–22; see id. at 3:37–40 (“the manufacturing method of the present invention can prevent damage to be generated in ohmic contacts of source/drain electrodes due to ion-injecting of high density”). Thus, the lower energy of Shim’s process is a benefit of that process over earlier ion implantation processes, which use higher energy. Shim does not teach that its use of lower-energy ion implantation is an improvement over other processes, such as the epitaxial growth taught by Shirakawa and the other references cited by Petitioner. Thus, Petitioner does not explain sufficiently why lower energy would be a benefit of the Shim- Shirakawa combination over Shirakawa alone. Accordingly, we are not persuaded on the current record that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Shirakawa and Shim to arrive at a combination that teaches or suggests the “diffusion layer patterns” of the challenged claims. slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,402,903
• Infineon Technologies AG v. Amatech Group LimitedInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution

  Instituted review of claims 1–11 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent on all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “1 We apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”). See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Petitioner does not list claim 1 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claim 1 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 56– 57. 3 Petitioner does not list claims 1and 4 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claims 1 and 4 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 73. 4 Petitioner argues that the Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Pet. 77–78; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Because Patent Owner does not argue for discretionary denial, we see no need to consider the issue further.” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The specification of the ’240 patent describes its technical field as relating to “‘secure documents’ …having RFID (radio frequency identification) chips …operating in contactless mode (ISO 14443) including dual interface (‘DI’, or ‘DIF’) cards which can also operate in contact mode (ISO 7816-2), and more particularly to improving coupling between components within the smart card …and consequent improvements in interacting with external RFID readers.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–34. The specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See e.g., id. at 6:55–58. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 20035, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, on the record currently before us, we are not persuaded that the level of 5 Our citations are to the native page numbers in the document and not Patent Owner’s numbering. devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Dr. van der Weide’s Level of Experience Patent Owner argues that we should not give substantial weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–72. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. at 27. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Based on the current record, Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,165,240
• Forescout Technologies, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 15, 2022 · IPR2021-00914 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13, 15–18, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Patrick alone, Patrick and Roese, or Patrick and Gilde.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contends “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . at the time of the ’314 patent’s effective filing date would typically be a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering and at least three years of experience in networking operating systems and cybersecurity, or a person with a master’s degree in one of the foregoing and at least two years of experience in the aforementioned fields.” Pet. 4 (citing Cole Decl. ¶¶ 26–28). For our Institution Decision, we adopted this definition. Institution Dec. 7. Patent Owner states that it “does not object” to Petitoner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 22. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We therefore continue to apply Petitioner’s formulation for this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Notwithstanding the parties’ initial position that claim construction is not required, for our Institution Decision we followed the guidance provided by the ’314 patent specification on the meaning of certain terms appearing in the patent. Institution Dec. 8–9. Thus, we construed the following terms: 1. Administrator/Network Administrator – “Administrators delegate workload to Sponsors, view reports and audit trails.” Ex. 1001, 2:2–4. “A Network Administrator has the responsibility of delegating the network management workload.” Id. at 2:11–12. 2. Sponsors – “Sponsors administer control over endpoints requiring network resources.” Id. at 2:4–5. 3. Profiles – “Profiles define the scope and limitations of a Sponsor's” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument and find that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine the teachings of Patrick and Roese. Petitioner provides detailed testimony by Dr. Cole supporting the conclusion that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Patrick and Roese. Pet. Reply 20–22 (citing Cole Decl. ¶¶ 216–224). Dr. Cole testifies that “Patrick teaches that its system provides ‘flexible policies’ and ‘allow[s] for simple integration with third-party security products.’” Id. ¶ 216 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 41) (alteration in original). He testifies that “Roese describes an exemplary network security system” that is “able to enforce certain restrictions, on an initial and continual basis, based on locations of devices.” Id. ¶ 217 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 33) (internal quotation marks omitted). He concludes that “Roese is . . . an example of a ‘suitable entity which can be interacted with programmatically’ as identified in Patrick.” Id. ¶ 218 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41) (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with Dr. Cole that “Patrick provides a specific motivation to combine, by emphasizing its use of ‘flexible policies’ and explaining its invention ‘allow[s] for simple integration with third-party security products.’” Id. ¶ 222 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Dr. Cole testifies that a person of ordinary skill “would recognize that Roese’s system is one such third party security product, as suggested by Patrick, and also provides additional benefits relating to managing devices, as described in Roese.” Id. ¶ 223. Dr. Cole’s testimony also persuades us of the existence of a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. ¶ 218 (“A [person of ordinary skill] would therefore understand, consistent with Patrick’s express suggestion, that Patrick’s policy definitions and delegations of authority could be used together with Roese’s network security system to allow for policies specifically focused on managing devices.”). Patent Owner contends that “Petitioner . . . fails to demonstrate with respect to each of the disparate features of Roese relied upon, what the predictable results would be and how it would ‘provide a means to delegate and enforce policies relating to devices’ as alleged by Petitioner.” PO Resp. 42. We do not agree that Petitioner’s showing of motivation to combine, summarized supra, is insufficient. KSR instructs us that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,” so the fact that it would take some creativity to carry out the combination does not defeat a finding of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 421, see also ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The rationale of KSR does not support [the] theory that a person of ordinary skill can only perform combinations of a puzzle element A with a perfectly fitting puzzle element B.”). We find, for the reasons given, that Petitioner’s showing meets this standard and is sufficient. Petitioner, therefore, has demonstrated a motivation to combine Patrick with Roese with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition is insufficiently particular as to this or any other limitation. See PO Resp. 34– 35. For example, as discussed supra, Dr. Cole’s testimony supports Petitioner’s position that Patrick discloses transferring responsibility with specific references to Patrick. Cole Decl. ¶¶ 110–116. Dr. Cole explains how Patrick teaches delegating authorization from one subject to another. Id. ¶ 111. He relies on Figure 11 of Patrick to further illustrate his opinion. Id. ¶ 112. We do not agree that this testimony is insufficiently specific to show how Patrick meets this limitation or that Petitioner has failed to carry its burden. Moreover, other examples from Dr. Cole’s testimony are presented in the Petition at pages 20–21. There is no improper incorporation by reference to Dr. Cole’s testimony, as suggested by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 35. We therefore do not agree with Patent Owner (see id.) that “the Board should reject all grounds” due to lack of specificity in Petitioner’s case.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,458,314 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,458,314
• Moleculight, Inc. v. Swift Medical Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 9, 2022 · PGR2022-00041 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Institution

  The Board instituted PGR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding it more likely than not that at least one claim is unpatentable under § 102 or § 103.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “challenges the patentability of claims 1–20 of the ’345 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), which provides that a post-grant review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “invention would “have had at least a bachelor’s degree in engineering with relevant coursework, and the equivalent of at least two years of work experience in the design, operation, and functioning of imaging systems, amounting to familiarity with concepts related to illumination and detection schemes for optical imaging systems.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 48). Petitioner further asserts that “[a]dditional relevant work experience could substitute for a bachelor’s degree, and additional education or training could substitute for relevant work experience.” Id. We find Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’345 patent. Thus, for purposes of this decision, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the date of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in engineering with relevant coursework, and the equivalent of at least two years of work experience in the design, operation, and functioning of imaging systems, amounting to familiarity with concepts related to illumination and detection schemes for optical imaging systems. 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 for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 8

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

    “B. Claim Construction We need only construe terms that are in controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, Petitioner “submits that no explicit construction is necessary when applying the prior art presented,” but notes “the Board may wish to construe ‘a central aperture of the illumination unit’ in claim 5[, construe] ‘proper distance’ in claim 13, and [consider] application of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in view of the prosecution history of the ‘345 patent.” Pet. 10. Petitioner also addresses “a central aperture of the illumination unit” as claim 5 recites and “proper distance” as claim 13 recites. Id. at 10–11. Petitioner also addresses the possibility of various terms invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Id. at 11–13. For purposes of this decision, we determine that claim construction is unnecessary for institution of this post grant review. As we explain herein, Petitioner adequately establishes that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would prevail in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable under §§ 102 or 103. This is true whether based on plain and ordinary meaning or based on the various alternatives Petitioner presents when addressing claim construction. Pet. 9–14” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Relevant Law To establish anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Each element of the challenged claim must be found, either expressly or inherently, in the single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although the elements must be arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim, “the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the dispositive question is whether one skilled in the art would have reasonably understood or inferred from a prior art reference that every claim element is disclosed in that reference. Eli Lilly v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Inst. at Harbor–UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,266,345

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.