• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2020 · IPR2018-01711 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–18 of the ’907 patent not unpatentable over Olesen, Tan, and Queen under §103, finding Lilly had not met its burden.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Accordingly, we determined for purposes of our Institution Decision that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “effective amount” The term “effective amount” is recited in all of the independent” slip op. at 18

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

    “Reply. In fact, Petitioner argues that “[t]he prior art expressly recognized the downside of treating migraine patients with CGRP inhibitors having a short half-life,” citing to a report that CGRP8-37 (a peptide fragment of CGRP) “‘proved ineffective in migraine treatment’ due to ‘its low potency and short half-life.’” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1031, 323; Ex. 1014 ¶ 124) (emphasis by Petitioner). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a POSA would have been motivated to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody fragment.” slip op. at 93

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

    “the cross-examination of Dr. Ferrari as beyond the scope of Dr. Ferrari’s direct testimony. Mot. Excl. 9. Upon review of the Ferrari Declaration, Exhibit 2268, we agree that questions on cyclic AMP were beyond the scope of the Ferrari Declaration. Accordingly, we grant this aspect of the motion.” slip op. at 159

  Patent outcomesUS 9,884,907 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,884,907
• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2020 · IPR2018-01710 · APJ Richard J Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board found that Lilly did not prove claims 1, 3, 4, 8–17, 19, 20, and 24–31 of the ’045 patent, or claims 1–18 of the ’907 and ’908 patents, unpatentable over Olesen, Tan, and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “appreciable difference in the parties’ respective definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Accordingly, we determined for purposes of our Institution Decision that a person of ordinary skill in the art” slip op. at 13

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

    “conclusion based on underlying factual findings. Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). The underlying factual findings include whether the reference was publicly accessible. Id. (citing In re NTP, Inc., 654 F.3d 1279, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). In an inter partes review, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication. Id. (citing Medtronic Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227 (CCPA 1981) (a party asserting a reference as a prior art printed publication should provide sufficient proof of accessibility).” slip op. at 152

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “(Ex. 2239), and also the opportunity to submit a Sur-reply (Paper 43). Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to meet its burden to show that the arguments and evidence should be stricken. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20; Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (reply may document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness). Accordingly, this aspect of the motion is denied.” slip op. at 163

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

    “Reply. In fact, Petitioner argues that “[t]he prior art expressly recognized the downside of treating migraine patients with CGRP inhibitors having a short half-life,” citing to a report that CGRP8-37 (a peptide fragment of CGRP) “‘proved ineffective in migraine treatment’ due to ‘its low potency and short half-life.’” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1031, 323; Ex. 1014 ¶ 124) (emphasis by Petitioner). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a POSA would have been motivated to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody fragment.” slip op. at 93

  Patent outcomesUS 8,586,045 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,586,045
• Eli Lilly And Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbHNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 31, 2020 · IPR2018-01712 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–18 of the ’908 patent not unpatentable because Lilly failed to prove the Olesen, Tan, and Queen obviousness ground by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Reply. In fact, Petitioner argues that “[t]he prior art expressly recognized the downside of treating migraine patients with CGRP inhibitors having a short half-life,” citing to a report that CGRP8-37 (a peptide fragment of CGRP) “‘proved ineffective in migraine treatment’ due to ‘its low potency and short half-life.’” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1031, 323; Ex. 1014 ¶ 124) (emphasis by Petitioner). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that a POSA would have been motivated to humanize an anti-CGRP antibody fragment.” slip op. at 93

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

    “form, not relevant, vague, mischaracterized the witnesses’ prior testimony, called for a legal conclusion, lacked clarity, or contained compound questions. Mot. Excl. 7–12. We consider Patent Owner’s arguments in this regard to address issues of weight rather than admissibility, and we deny these aspects of the motion. See Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00053, Paper 66 at 19 (PTAB May 1, 2014) (sitting as a non-jury tribunal, the Board may assign appropriate weight to evidence presented) (citing Donnelly Garment Co. v. NLRB, 123 F.2d 215, 224 (8th Cir. 1941)).” slip op. at 158

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “(Ex. 2239), and also the opportunity to submit a Sur-reply (Paper 43). Therefore, we determine that Patent Owner has failed to meet its burden to show that the arguments and evidence should be stricken. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20; Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. L.P. v. Biomarin Pharm Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Anacor Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, 889 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (reply may document the knowledge that skilled artisans would bring to bear in reading the prior art identified as producing obviousness). Accordingly, this aspect of the motion is denied.” slip op. at 163

  Patent outcomesUS 9,884,908 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,884,908
• Initiative For Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-Mak), Inc. v. Gilead Pharmasset LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2018 · IPR2018-00103 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution for claims 1–19 because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was anticipated by Klecker or Sommadossi, or obvious over Sommadossi and Klecker.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314; see 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.4. Upon considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review for any challenged claim of the ’572 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by Klecker. To anticipate a reference must expressly or inherently disclose “within the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited in the claim.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (2008). Moreover, “anticipation is not proven by ‘multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.’” Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). “[A] disclosed genus may anticipate a claimed species when the genus is so small that one of ordinary skill in the art would ‘at once envisage each member of this limited class.’” Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Continental Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting AbbVie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Tr., 764 F.3d 1366, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In this case, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner is improperly using claim 1 as a roadmap to cherry pick teachings of the Klecker reference to arrive at compounds encompassed by the genus of that claim. For example, we acknowledge that Klecker teaches that a fluorine may be placed below the ring at the 2' position of the sugar ring. Ex. 1005, 19:25‒26. Petitioner does not point us to any teaching of Klecker, however, that teaches a compound that has both a methyl group and a fluorine at the 2' position of the sugar ring, regardless of whether the fluorine is in the up position or the down position. That is, although the broad genus of compounds disclosed by Klecker encompasses such compounds, Petitioner does not point us to any teaching, other than the broad disclosure of the genus, wherein “W, X, Y, [and] Z” may be “H, hydroxy, halogen, alkyl (C1- C6), alkoxy (C1-C6)a label containing moiety or a label” (Ex. 1005, 15:3‒5), that would direct the ordinary artisan to choose X and W such that one of X and W is methyl and the other is fluorine, much less pointing to support of X as fluorine and W as methyl.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Fortunak in asserting that because Klecker teaches the X position may be substituted with fluorine and teaches that W can be an alkyl (C1 – C6), the ordinary artisan would understand from “general knowledge and common sense that methyl is a preferred lower alkyl in that group.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 92). Dr. Fortunak, however, merely repeats the statement in the Petition without citing any evidentiary support. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 92; see also id. ¶¶ 93‒95 (discussing choosing other substituents in the structure of Klecker). Conclusory statements by an expert “that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Furthermore, Petitioner’s conclusory statements (Pet. 34‒35) that because C is the first substituent identified for J, and H and OH are the first two substituents identified for Y and Z and, thus, the ordinary artisan would immediately envisage a compound where J is C, Y is H, and Z is OH, do not sufficiently persuade us that the ordinary artisan would immediately envisage their implementation to arrive at compounds that fall within the genus of claim 1.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot shown unpatentableInherency not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “To the extent that Petitioner (Pet. 51‒52) is invoking inherency in arguing that the express teaching of Sommadossi that R7 may be chloro, 6 Britton et al., U.S. Patent 5,420,266, issued May 30, 1995 (Ex. 1011). bromo and iodo, is also an express teaching that R7 may be fluoro, we disagree that the use of fluoro as the R7 group is inherent in the teachings of Sommadossi. “Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.” MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum, 192 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1999), quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (CCPA 1981). Even though the ordinary artisan may have understood that fluoro is also a halogen and may be substituted for chloro, bromo, or iodo, the fact remains that Sommadossi taught the use of, inter alia, chloro, bromo, or iodo at the R7 position, specifically, rather than a halogen element, generally. Ex. 1006, 13:24‒27. Petitioner’s argument (Pet. 52) that “Sommadossi taught that R6 could be ‘chloro, bromo, fluoro, [or] iodo,’” is actually counter to Petitioner’s assertions. That is, that statement demonstrates that Sommadossi knew that “fluoro” could be included in the list of halogens. Moreover, Sommadossi defined the term “halo” as “chloro, bromo, iodo, and fluoro.” Ex. 1006, 52:31. Thus, to avoid inadvertently excluding a halogen, Sommadossi could have used the term “halo” in listing the possible substituents for the R7 group, but chose not to do so. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently established that Sommadossi anticipates the compounds of claim 1. Because, as discussed above in our analysis of the anticipation ground over Klecker, all of the claims require the compound of that claim, or a particular compound that falls within the genus of claim 1, Petitioner has also not sufficiently demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are anticipated by Sommadossi. Accordingly, we decline to institute trial as to any of the challenged claims on the basis that the claim is anticipated by Sommadossi.” slip op. at 17

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,429,572
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01801 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 31, 33, and 40–46 were not shown unpatentable because Rabinovich required prior client access before replication, and Carter did not cure that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Ratner, testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 14. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 21–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 20. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. at 21. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “whether to replicate data object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating/migrating object xs only if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, and the ratio can be greater than m only if cnt(s,xs) is greater than zero. PO Resp. 19; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication or migration step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate or migrate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independent of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer.” slip op. at 18

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

    “30, for use with a computer game (claim 45) and with an interactive computer game accessed by at least two users (claim 46). Ex. 1001, 30:47– 54. In connection with its obviousness contentions, Petitioner makes no separate arguments why Rabinovich teaches or suggests shifting redundantly stored data based upon data transmission parameters between the servers independent of an access of the client. Pet. 45–47; Reply 17–18. Because claims 45 and 46 depend from claim 30, we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Rabinovich teaches or suggests the limitations in these two dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 30.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS RE40,521 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Ac Technologies S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rabinovich; Petitioner did not prove claims 1–15 obvious over Rabinovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 17; Pet. 16. Patent Owner does not challenge this definition or present its own. Accordingly, we credit the testimony of Dr. Ratner regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in Computer Science or a related field, such as Electrical Engineering, and two to three years of experience working in the field, or an equivalent level of experience. This level of ordinary skill is reflected not only by the information presented by the parties, but also by the prior art of record. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning and determine Rabinovich to be a printed publication. We credit the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Rabinovich regarding the consistency of his professional practice in 1998 for republication of his AT&T technical memoranda on a webpage that he managed on AT&T’s publicly accessible website. Furthermore, we find the December 1998 IEEE article corroborates the public availability of Rabinovich on that website, and would have been a roadmap, for one of ordinary skill in the art of data management and optimized access to data, to be guided to Rabinovich. See Reply 19–22. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s own declarant states that Rabinovich and the December 1988 IEEE article “are ‘similar[]’ in that they both address ‘problems in network connectivity caused by multiple clients accessing servers.’ (Ex. 2006 at 12).” Id. at 21. Additionally, the passage in the December 1998 IEEE article that cites to Rabinovich refers to an algorithm in Rabinovich for optimizing access to data in order to increase performance. Id. Accordingly, we find that footnote 16 of the IEEE article, which contains the URL to Rabinovich, would have guided one of ordinary skill directly to Rabinovich. We are, therefore, persuaded, that Rabinovich is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “object xs. Rabinovich defines cnt(s,xs) as the “total access count for xs,” which is equal to cnt(xs). Ex. 1006, 11. According to Dr. Ratner, “[t]he metric cnt(s,xs) measures the total number of times in that window that replica xs has been served to a client computer.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 253. As Patent Owner points out, Rabinovich teaches replicating object xs if the ratio of cnt(s,xs) over aff(xs) is greater than m, i.e., a non-zero value. PO Resp. 34; Ex. 1006, 12, Fig. 4. In view of this, we agree with Patent Owner that if cnt(s,xs) has a value of zero, meaning that object x has not been served to any client computer, then the ratio of cnt(s,xs) to aff(xs) will be zero, i.e., less than m, and Rabinovich will not carry out its replication step. This means that Rabinovich will not replicate object xs until xs has been accessed by a client computer at least once, such that the access count for xs is greater than zero. In this regard, we agree with Patent Owner that Rabinovich object xs is not “sen[t], from the at least one data storage device to the another data storage device . . . independently of an access of the at least one client computer” because Rabinovich teaches explicitly that object xs is not sent unless there has been at least one access from the client computer. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that Rabinovich” slip op. at 18

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

    “pieces” Claim 1 recites “each file including a plurality of individual pieces, the pieces containing parts of the files.” Ex. 1002, 25:67–26:1. The other independent claims recite limitations commensurate in scope. Neither party proposes explicitly a construction of the term “piece.” Petitioner argues that “files are inherently composed of pieces in the form of bits that make up bytes, the bytes themselves being pieces of the file.” Pet. 32. Patent Owner argues that construing “piece” to cover “bits and bytes” of a file “would read out the ‘pieces’ limitation from the claim entirely” (PO Resp. at 29–30) and that “one of ordinary skill in the art would not read the ‘pieces’ limitation of the claim to include bits and bytes” (id. at 30). The claims themselves define “piece” by requiring that a “file” have a “plurality of individual pieces,” but do not establish a lower bound—i.e., a minimum number of bits or bytes—to qualify as a “piece.” Patent Owner identifies no support in the ’680 patent for its contention that “piece” or “pieces” excludes a byte or bytes of a file, relying instead solely on the testimony of Dr. Paul S. Jacobs. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 38, 39). We are not persuaded by Dr. Jacobs’s conclusory testimony. Because “piece” and “pieces” are limited by the claims only to being a subset of a file and because a byte or collection of bytes of a file is a subset of that file, we are persuaded that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “piece” and “pieces” in light of the Specification of the ’680 patent encompasses a byte or bytes. slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 7,904,680 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,680
• Commscope Technologies, LLC v. Communications Components Antenna Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Nov 3, 2016 · IPR2016-00999 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–28 unpatentable, principally because Yea did not establish the claimed asymmetrical coverage areas.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review of claims 1–28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,582 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’582 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Communications Components Antenna Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we are not persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 1–28 of the ’582 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner’s proposed construction of this limitation is supported by the specification of the ’582 patent. The ’582 patent discloses replacing a single sector coverage area with sub-sector coverage areas, at least one of which is an asymmetrical coverage area. Ex. 1001, 3:16–18. The ’582 patent discloses that the use of asymmetrical coverage areas permits the total coverage area to closely approximate the symmetrical sector coverage area being replaced, without creating excessively large sub-sector handover zones or introducing sever degradation in network performance. Id. at 3:18–24. The ’582 patent discloses creating the asymmetrical coverage areas by replacing an existing antenna with an antenna that has substantially the same coverage area, but divides the coverage area into a plurality of separate asymmetrical beams or sub-sectors. Id. at 4:32–38. As disclosed by the ’582 patent, the replacement antenna produces a plurality of separate beams, each defining a new sub-sector with only a small overlapping area between them and which together provide substantially identical coverage to the sector supported by the original antenna, to upgrade the single sector to a plurality of sub-sectors without significantly affecting neighboring sites. Id. at 4:51–57. The replacement antenna introduces asymmetry into the generated beam pattern. Id. at 4:58–60. The introduction of asymmetrical beams by the replacement antenna allows close approximation of the coverage area of the conventional sector antenna being replaced. Id. at 5:61–64. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “a plurality of sub-sector coverage areas extending therefrom, at least one of which is asymmetrical,” as a plurality of replacement sub-sector beams, at least one of which has an asymmetrical shape, where asymmetry includes deliberate or inherent asymmetry as the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “49 (Fed. Cir. 2005). There, the district court invalidated claims of the patent in suit on summary judgment based on the measured dimensions of a prior art patent figure. Id. at 1148. The Federal Circuit reversed, warning “that arguments based on drawings not explicitly made to scale in issued patents are unavailing.” Id. at 1149. Petitioner here does not identify any portion of Yea disclosing that Figures 4 and 8 are drawn accurately enough to determine an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Petitioner also fails to cite to any disclosure in Yea that identifies or describes an asymmetrical nature of the radiation patterns. Furthermore, Petitioner also has not explained why the shapes shown in the linear scale drawings of Figure 4 would show similar shapes when converted to a logarithmic scale. Additionally, Petitioner does not explain why the carrier to interference ratio shown in Figure 8 can be used to accurately measure antenna radiation beam patterns. We find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the plots shown in Figures 4 and 8 of Yea can be used to determine whether the antenna radiation beam pattern is asymmetrical. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that Yea anticipates independent claims 1, 13, and 20. b. Dependent Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27 Petitioner argues that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27. Pet. 47–53. In so arguing, Petitioner relies on Yea as disclosing the claimed asymmetrical coverage area. Id. Because we are not persuaded that Yea discloses this limitation, we are not persuaded that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that Yea anticipates dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 27.” slip op. at 14

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

    “as well as testimony of both Mr. Collins and Mr. Cosgrove. Under Rule 37 C.F.R. § 42.108, any genuine issues of material fact created by the testimonial evidence should be viewed in light most favorable to the petitioner solely for purposes of deciding whether to institute an inter partes review. Even reviewing the testimony of Mr. Collins in the light most favorable to Petitioner, we determine Petitioner has established only that asymmetrical beams may be used in a planar array antenna, but not that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Mr. Collins cites to Litva (Ex. 1009) and Wästberg (Ex. 1018) in stating that prior art steered beams of a planar array antenna can be asymmetrical beams. Ex. 1024 ¶ 179. We credit Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Mr. Cosgrove to determine Petitioner does not sufficiently establish the likelihood that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that steered beams of a planar array antenna are necessarily asymmetrical. Further, Petitioner fails to set forth a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would use the asymmetrical beams of the prior art with the disclosure of Yea. Pet. 39–40. On the record before us, we determine the Petition and supporting evidence does not adequately establish a reasonable likelihood that using asymmetrical beams in Yea would have been obvious. We therefore conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11–15, 18–22, 24, and 27 would have been obvious over Yea, Metawave Website, Litva, and Wästberg.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,311,582
• Sandisk Corp. v. Netlist, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · IPR2015-01020 · APJ Peter P Chen · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 17, 22, 24, 26, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious over Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly; claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 were not shown unpatentable over Takeda and JEDEC.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s position. First, the claim language does not recite any physical or structural connection, rather, only “electrically coupling.” Pet. Reply 3, 8–9. In addition, the specification of the ’150 patent does not define explicitly the term “selectively electrically coupling.” Therefore, as in IPR2014-00882 and IPR2014-01011, we refer to its ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. Translogic Tech., 504 F.3d at 1257. A technical dictionary, the IEEE Dictionary,4 defines “electrical coupling” as “[e]lectrical charges in conductors of a disturbed circuit formed by electrical induction.” Ex. 3001. The IEEE Dictionary explains that “[s]ince the ratio of a conductor’s electrostatic charge to the potential difference between conductors (required to maintain that charge) is the general definition of capacitance, electrical coupling is also called capacitive coupling.” Id. The IEEE Dictionary defines” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Based on our review of the ’150 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’150 patent and cited prior art, we conclude a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’150 patent would have a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or related field, and at least one year of work experience, including familiarity with computer memory systems and related industry standards such as JEDEC standards for DRAM memories and memory modules. We further note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). D. Declarant Testimony” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “To testify as an expert under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, a person need not be a person of ordinary skill in the art, but rather must be “qualified in the pertinent art.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding a district court’s ruling to allow an expert to provide testimony at trial because the expert “had sufficient relevant technical expertise” and the expert’s “knowledge, skill, experience, training [and] education . . . [wa]s likely to assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence”); Mytee Prods., Inc. v. Harris Research, Inc., 439 F. App’x 882, 886–87 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (upholding admission of the testimony of an expert who “had experience relevant to the field of the invention,” despite admission that he was not a person of ordinary skill in the art). As noted above, Dr. Jagannathan has designed and implemented hardware virtual memory caches, and researched theoretical performance measures of various cache coherency protocols, and has experience in the design of memory systems. We find that, although Dr. Jagannathan may be less experienced than Dr. Sechen in the area of memory module design, he is nonetheless qualified sufficiently to testify about memory systems and memory modules. E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 15, 16, 31, and 32 in view of Takeda” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “We have reviewed the parties’ contentions on this issue, and exercise our discretion to determine that Petitioner’s Reply and the Jagannathan Supplemental Declaration will not be excluded. We find that, although they may be “inartfully” drafted, the first Jagannathan declaration and Petition sufficiently outlined Petitioner’s position on the function of the chip select signal, namely, that the chip select signal was not itself the logic signal enabling operation of bit-switches. We further find that Petitioner’s Reply and the Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration did not present an entirely new rationale of unpatentability based on Takeda, JEDEC, and Connolly. Cf. Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s exclusion of reply brief and declaration that changed unpatentability theory to “an entirely new rationale”). Moreover, there is no dispute that Patent Owner was aware of Petitioner’s position by no later than the Jagannathan deposition, which preceded Patent Owner’s Response by ten days. Patent Owner could have addressed Petitioner’s chip select signal contention, procedurally or substantively, in its Response, but chose to raise the issue only after Petitioner filed its Reply and Supplemental Jagannathan Declaration. Accordingly, Patent Owner had notice of Petitioner’s position and an opportunity to refute that position in its Response.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,881,150 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,881,150
• Toyota Motor Corporation v. Signal IP, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2016 · IPR2016-00293 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, and 6 obvious over either asserted combination.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review of claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (Ex. 1001, “the ’927 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). In response, Patent Owner, Signal IP, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons set forth below, we deny institution of inter partes review of the ’927 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(1) a related inter partes review (Pet. 8), and (2) a related matter before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (id. at 6–8). Regarding the related inter partes review, the Board previously construed the term “alert command” as raw alert data that is used to generate an alert signal, and the term “alert signal” as a signal that provides a visual or audio alert to a driver. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc. v. Signal IP, Inc., Case IPR2015-00968, slip op. at 6–7 (PTAB Aug. 25, 2015), Paper 6. In order to reach our decision below, we need only construe the terms “alert command” and “alert signal.” We, therefore, decline to specifically construe any other claim terms at this time. We agree with Petitioner’s construction of the terms “alert command” and “alert signal,” consistent with our prior construction in IPR2015-00968. (See id. for our prior construction of the terms.) Thus, we construe the term “alert command” as raw alert data that is used to generate an alert signal, and the term “alert signal” as a signal that provides a visual or audio alert to a driver. Id. As explained below, even using Petitioner’s construction of these terms, Petitioner’s challenge fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner asserts that it would have been obvious “to modify Pakett’s system such that it determines whether the ‘alert signal,’ as opposed to the ‘alert command,’ was active for a ‘threshold time’ as the claim requires.” Pet. 47. Petitioner asserts that this could be accomplished by activating a warning (alert signal) as soon as Pakett recognizes that an obstacle is present, and then applying the processing method previously applied to the persistence period instead to determine whether to sustain the warning. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 101–04). Petitioner asserts that “one of ordinary skill in the art would consider Pakett’s delay of a warning until after the end of the persistence period to be nothing more than an optional redundancy,” and, thus, that this modification would have been obvious as “nothing more than a routine, obvious design choice.” Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 104). We disagree with Petitioner that the cited portions of Pakett’s teaching to delay the warning until after the persistence period is “nothing more than an optional redundancy,” at least because the cited portions of Packett do not indicate, either explicitly or implicitly, the 17 function of waiting for the persistence period before sending a warning to the driver indicators as optional or redundant. See id. Pakett clearly states that during the persistence period, “no warnings are sent to the driver indicators.” Ex. 1002, 6:50–51 (emphasis added). Pakett explains that waiting through the persistence period before sending warnings to the driver indicators prevents the system from incorrectly identifying stationary obstacles that were identified by the square wave generator 29 as valid obstacles in the blind spot. Id. at 7:56–63. Pakett thus explains that waiting through the persistence period before sending warnings to the driver indicators filters out false positives of objects in the blind spot of the vehicle. Id.” slip op. at 17

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 5,714,927
• Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 19, 2016 · IPR2015-00219 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 12–15 and 17–21 were not shown unpatentable because Oosterom did not disclose searching the database using a jurisdictional identifier.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we construed “jurisdictional identifier” to mean “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.” Dec. 6. We based our construction on the only appearance of “jurisdictional identifier” in the written description of the ’352 patent, which states: FIG. 3 illustrates a USA County Boundary Map (USACM). This is a public domain boundary file of each and every of the 3140 counties within the United States. Each of these polygons is geocoded with its county name and FIPS number, a numerical jurisdictional identifier, as illustrated in the figure. Ex. 1001, 8:48–53 (emphasis added).3 BSI does not challenge our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” in its Patent Owner Response, see PO Resp. 6, nor does CoreLogic challenge the construction in its Reply, see Reply 10. For this Final Written Decision, after considering the complete record, we maintain our construction of “jurisdictional identifier” as “a number or other name, code, or description that identifies a jurisdiction.”” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Having reviewed the arguments and evidence, we are not persuaded CoreLogic has demonstrated that Oosterom discloses searching the parcel map database “using a jurisdictional identifier” as recited in claim 12. Among the attributes in Oosterom’s parcel and boundary tables identified by CoreLogic in its analysis, only the municipality codes (i.e., “municip” in the parcel table and “L_municip” and “R_municip” in the boundary table) qualify as “jurisdictional identifiers.” See Ex. 1010, 513–14 (Tables 1, 2). The “object_id” of an object, e.g., a parcel or a boundary, is a nationwide unique identifier, but there is no indication in Oosterom that the object_id of a parcel or boundary identifies a jurisdiction. See id. at 512; see also id. at 513–14 (showing object_id attribute in parcel and boundary tables). As for the “ogroup” attribute in the parcel and boundary tables, Oosterom states only that it “indicates to which group the record belongs.” Id. at 519. Nothing in Oosterom describes the ogroup as identifying a jurisdiction. Although the municipality code attributes in the parcel and boundary tables identify jurisdiction, CoreLogic does not cite any portion of Oosterom that illustrates the use of municipality codes in searching the database for selected parcels as required by claim 12. See Pet. 45. Dr. Goodchild opines that the “municipality code . . . would allow us to search [the] parcel table by that jurisdiction and to identify all the parcels in that jurisdiction.” Ex. 2010, 19:22–24. He further testifies that in his analysis, he “was concerned with the specific kind of query identified in the claim, which is much narrower than Oosterom’s discussion [and] much more specific than the broad range of queries discussed by Oosterom.” Id. at 21:14–25. Ultimately, he states that the “question [he] analyzed is whether [Oosterom’s] database is capable of supporting the type of query identified in the claim.” Id. at 22:14–16 (emphasis added). Dr. Goodchild’s testimony that municipality codes could be used in searching Oosterom’s database, however, is insufficient to establish for anticipation purposes that Oosterom discloses the step of searching a multi-jurisdictional digital parcel map database for a selected parcel boundary polygon “using a jurisdictional identifier.”” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeOther

    “C. CoreLogic’s Motion to Exclude Evidence CoreLogic moves to exclude the redirect testimony of BSI’s expert, Mr. William Huxhold, on the ground that it was provided in response to leading questions. Mot. Excl. 1 (citing Ex. 1034, 150:6–153:8). The redirect testimony relates to a portion of Mr. Huxhold’s cross-examination testimony. Id. at 1–2 (citing Ex. 1034, 72:5–22). Because we do not rely on Mr. Huxhold’s testimony, CoreLogic’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,065,352 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 8,065,352

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.