- Microsoft Corporation v. Smart Skins LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 21, 2017 · IPR2016-00404 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, maintaining that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 are entitled to the July 17, 2001 priority date and that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS When considering a request for rehearing, the Board reviews its decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). The party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateEntitled to earlier dateDecided for patent owner
“part of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/087,098 (Ex. 1014, “the ’098 application”), which was filed on March 1, 2002, and that the ’864 patent and the ’098 application claim priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/306,326 (Ex. 1015, “the ’326 provisional”), which was filed on July 17, 2001. Dec. 14–15 (citing Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 10; Paper 14 (“PO Resp.”), 8; Ex. 1001; Ex. 1014, 2). We determined that Smart Skins LLC (“Patent Owner”) had shown sufficiently that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to a filing date of July 17, 2001, because the disclosures of the ’098 application and the ’326 provisional (collectively, “the priority applications”) provide written description support for the challenged claims of the ’864 patent. Dec. 14–21.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“established by Patent Owner for the challenged claims (July 17, 2001) predates the earliest filing dates of Janik and Kehoe established by Petitioner (September 4, 2001, and October 24, 2001, respectively). Dec. 22. We determined that, as a result, Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Dec. 22. Therefore, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 23, and 24 would have been obvious over Janik and Kehoe. Id. at 23. Petitioner argues that, because we erred in determining that the challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“challenged claims of the ’864 patent are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications, we should reconsider our determination that Janik and Kehoe are not prior art. Req. Reh’g 15. For the reasons discussed above, we maintain our determination that the challenged claims are entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the priority applications. Thus, we also maintain our determination that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that either Janik or Kehoe qualifies as prior art to the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Petitioner requests that we address the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe “conditionally,” even if we do not change our determination regarding the priority date of the challenged claims. Req. Reh’g 15. We are not persuaded, though, that it would be an efficient use of resources to address all of the parties’ arguments and evidence regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe when Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Janik and Kehoe are prior art to the challenged claims. Therefore, we decline to “conditionally” address any remaining issues regarding the asserted ground of unpatentability based on Janik and Kehoe.” slip op. at 15
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 7,079,864 - Talari Networks, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks India LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00976 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4, 5, and 7–15 are unpatentable; claim 19 was not shown unpatentable, because Karol anticipates some claims and Karol, alone or with Stallings, renders others obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“selecting paths. See id. 5:48–50. These methods allow for the selection to “be performed once per packet, or a given selection may pertain to multiple packets.” Id. at 14:40–46 (emphasis added). Thus, we find that the specification discloses both selection for each individual packet and selection for a group of packets.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“with either a manual or an automated environment. The cited passage distinguished routing by departments from dynamic load balancing by stating that the department-based routing is not dynamic because in dynamic load balancing the “router loads dynamically in response to actual traffic.” Id. at 2:63–64. We find that the cited passages show that the contemplated load balancing is performed based on actual traffic, but are insufficient to establish that the Patentee intended load balancing to be equated with a manual selection process. See Id. at 2:61–65, 7:31–32. Further, we are not convinced by Patent Owner’s arguments regarding the alleged requirement that traffic be assessed at some point after the packet’s arrival. The portion of the specification cited in support of this assertion refers to multiple scenarios or “cases.” See PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 14:53–58). The specification states that in one of those cases the path may be determined after the packet arrives and states that, for example, the path determination may be done using dynamic load balancing. See Ex. 1001, 14:53–58. This passage does not provide any specific temporal limitation to the term “dynamic load balancing,” but rather it illustrates an example of when load balancing could be used. It is improper to limit the claims to this one exemplary embodiment without more express language in the claims or the specification that would narrow the scope of this term. Thus, we find that the proper construction of dynamic load balancing is “distributing packets based on actual traffic.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“selection for each packet then Karol would have rendered this limitation obvious. Pet. 45. Petitioner asserts that this limitation would have been obvious because (1) modifying Karol to select networks on a per-packet basis would have amounted to nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (id. at 45); and (2) the combination of Karol and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art would have been obvious to try (id. at 46).” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Karol discloses sending different packets of a given message to different parallel networks. Karol does not describe any logical grouping of datagrams into a message. Ex. 2001 ¶¶72–74. On behalf of Patent Owner, Mr. Williams testifies that “Karol . . . never describes dividing up messages and sending those across disparate networks.” Id. ¶ 73. We note, that Karol uses the terms datagram and message in an interchangeable manner. See Ex. 1006, 1:10, 3:34–35 (“datagrams (sometimes hereinafter called messages)”). Karol also interchanges the terms packet and datagram. See id. 5:23–25. Thus, the mere use of the term “message” in Karol is not sufficient to show that Karol uses the term in the same manner as it is used in claim 19. We find Karol’s use of the terms datagram, packet, and message to be consistent with the ’235 patent’s use of the term packet because Karol treats these terms as disclosing a discrete unit of transmission that may be stored, halted, or turned around. Petitioner’s discussion of UDP segments is insufficient to establish that packets from a given message are sent to different networks because it is not clear from Karol’s disclosures that these UDP segments should be considered to be a “message.” Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 19 is anticipated by Karol.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 6,775,235 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 6,775,235 - Talari Networks, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks India LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 1, 2017 · IPR2016-00977 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24 are anticipated by Karol; all claims are obvious over Karol.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownGranted in part
“information to be gleaned by construing the words selecting/selects to mean “make a choice.” We also are not persuaded that there is a basis for inserting the word “discrete” into this construction. Therefore, based on the disputes before us, we see no reason to provide an express construction for the common terms select/selection.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Figure 5 of Karol depicts the packet forwarding process. Ex. 1006, 3:6–8. In step 501, a packet arrives at Karol’s CL router/switch 420. Id. 8:56–58. Step 503, then inquires as to whether the received packet is “a packet from a flow that needs CO Service.” Id. at Fig. 5, element 503 (emphasis added). Thus, we determine that Karol’s routing decisions are made for a flow of packets and not for an individual packet. As discussed above, we construed “selecting/selects, . . . within the controller on a per-packet basis” to require “selecting a network path for each packet.” See supra § II. Thus, we find that Karol does not disclose the per-packet selection required in claims 7 and 19. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to establish that claims 7 and 19 are anticipated by Karol.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Path First) to determine routing prior to a packet being received at the gateway. PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner further contends that “[t]he OSPF routing protocol expressly excludes the possibility of making packet routing decisions on a per-packet basis.” Id. at 24. We find this to be an overly narrow view of Karol’s disclosures because Karol is not limited to OSPF. See Ex. 1006, 14:20–22 (“the description below assumes the OSPF routing protocol, the concept is readily applicable to other IP routing protocols”). We determine that Petitioner has shown that it would have been obvious to modify Karol to select networks on a per-packet basis. Petitioner has proposed a modification to Karol that is “much simpler” and, therefore, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce system complexity. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 335. Petitioner has provided arguments and evidence sufficient to show that this modification would be within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See id. Thus, we find that Petitioner has put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to modify Karol in a manner that would have taught this limitation.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 7,406,048 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,406,048 - Viptela, Inc. v. Fatpipe Networks Private LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 3, 2017 · IPR2017-01125 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 4–15, 19, and 22–24, exercising discretion under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) based on overlapping petitions, follow-on arguments, and inefficient use of resources.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“’684 IPR, which in turn was a “copy-cat” of the ’976 IPR petition. Prelim. Resp. 2, 5. However, in deciding whether we should exercise our discretion and decline to go forward with this Petition, our concern is not only whether “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office,” as expressed in § 325(d), but also whether other factors weigh in favor of denying institution in light of the discretion afforded to us pursuant to § 314(a).” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“whether at the time of filing of the ’684 petition, Petitioner knew, or should have known, of Pearce, Zhang, and McCullough (“the Additional References”); the length of time that elapsed between learning of the Additional References, and the filing of the instant Petition; whether Petitioner has provided adequate explanation for the time lapse; whether at the time of filing of the instant Petition, Petitioner already had access to Patent Owner’s response in the ’976 IPR; and the finite resources of the Board. See Gen. Plastic Indus. at 16 (Paper 19) (informative). Petitioner provides no explanation of whether it knew or should have known of the Additional References when filing the ’684 petition; of when it first learned of these references; or of any time lapse between learning of these references and the filing of the instant Petition.” slip op. at 13
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“August 14, 2017, and a final decision is due by November 2, 2017. At this point, the decision in the ’976 IPR as to whether to see the matter through to final determination is squarely in our hands, regardless of whether any settlement is reached between the parties. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(a) (“The parties may agree to settle any issue in a proceeding, but the Board is not a party to the settlement and may independently determine any question of jurisdiction, patentability, or Office practice.”). Thus, if we deem it appropriate, we can reach a final decision on the grounds presented in the ’976 IPR with or without participation from the parties in that matter. These facts weigh in favor of us exercising our discretion not to move forward with the instant Petition, at least with respect to the ’976 instituted claims insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’976 IPR, because the issues raised are fully briefed and ripe for a final decision in the ’976 IPR, and Petitioner’s non-participation in that proceeding is at best neutral to our analysis. Petitioner is a party to the ’684 IPR, and in that proceeding the petition is directed to the same claims of the same patent as in this Petition. This fact weighs in favor of us not moving forward with the instant Petition. Also, at least with respect to the ’684 instituted claims, insofar as Petitioner’s arguments relate to Karol and are substantially identical to those in the ’684 IPR, Petitioner has the opportunity to address the same art and arguments in the ’684 proceeding. It would be an inefficient use of Office resources, and would run counter to securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of the challenges to the patentability of the ’235 patent, if we were to allow Petitioner to proceed on the same art and arguments in two separate proceedings.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner submits a list of terms for which Patent Owner has proposed construction in a co-pending district court case. Pet. 7–8. Petitioner, however, asserts that for the purposes of this Decision no terms need to be construed. Id. Patent Owner does not address claim construction in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. We reviewed the parties’ arguments, and, for the purposes of this Decision, we have determined that no terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,775,235 - Mobile Tech, Inc. v. Invue Security Products Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00892 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–27 are unpatentable: claims 1, 5–20, 22–25, and 27 as obvious over Rothbaum and Denison; claims 2–4, 21, and 26 as obvious over Rothbaum, Denison, and Ott.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We begin with the plain language of the claims. The term “matching” is used as a gerund (i.e., a verb acting as a noun) in claims 1 and 25 and ordinarily means “[t]he action of match.” Ex. 1020, 4, 6. Thus, the use of “upon a matching” suggests some action of a match, as opposed to, for example, “upon a match,” which might be read to require simply the existence of a match. This supports Petitioner’s view that the arming or disarming must be as a result of a “determination of a match” (a particular type of action).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree that the recital of various “forms of data communication” (Ex. 1001, 3:4–19) in the ’762 patent broadened the meanings of the term “communicate” and the phrase “configured to communicate” themselves. Rather, the “forms” of communication in the cited portion of the ’762 patent merely represent examples of the media or means by which the communication occurs in various preferred embodiments. Ex. 1001, 3:4–19 (listing at least seven examples). Thus, Petitioner does not persuade us that we need to construe the terms “communicate” and “configured to communicate” expressly to encompass both wireless and wired communications.” slip op. at 15
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Neither party explains in detail why its proposed level of ordinary skill in the art should be adopted nor how the different levels affect the parties’ analyses. Although there are slight differences between the proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art, the parties’ declarants agree that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a four-year technical degree or the equivalent and some amount of professional experience. Based on the evidence of record, including the testimony of the parties’ declarants, the subject matter at issue, and the prior art of record, we determine that the skill level of a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been that of a person having a four year technical degree or equivalent experience with a minimum of two years of professional technical experience in the field of theft prevention devices or related security devices. We apply this level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“i. Analogousness of Rothbaum and Denison As an initial matter, to be considered for obviousness, a reference must be analogous art. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.”). A prior art reference qualifies as analogous art (1) if it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, it is nonetheless reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. Id.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,884,762 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,884,762 - PTAB · Sep 20, 2017 · IPR2015-01611 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Volkswagen’s rehearing request; the Board maintained that Kniffin did not show the “responsive to” limitation for claims 26, 31, 38, 42, 43, 48, 60, 63, 64, 73, 74, 85, 138, 139, and 143.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 6,549,130 - Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2017 · IPR2016-00593 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held that claims 12–15, 21–23, 25–27, 33–38, 44, and 45 were not shown unpatentable because Pictometry was not established as a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“Version 2.7 (“EFS 2.7 User Guide,” “Pictometry,” or “User Guide”) and, as the name suggests, is a user guide for the Pictometry software product. See Ex. 1004, xiii. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not demonstrate that Pictometry is prior art. PO Resp. 5–10. In our Final Written Decision in IPR2016-00594, we considered substantively the same arguments and evidence Patent Owner and Petitioner raise in this case. See IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29; compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 31, 13–20 with PO Resp. 6– 13; and compare IPR2016-00594 Paper 33, 3–9 with Reply 4–11. In IPR2016-00594, we found Pictometry’s limited dissemination to some governmental entities subject to licensing restrictions was not sufficient to show public dissemination or public accessibility. IPR2016-00594 FWD 17–29. We adopt that same finding here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we find that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 311(b).” slip op. at 6
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“substantively the same as the arguments made in IPR2016-00594. In IPR2016-00594, we denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 1004 (Pictometry), Exhibit 1011 (a Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition “database” copied from a web page), Exhibit 2010 (Cohasset Town Report 2008), 2011 (LARIAC1 Pictometry Training), Exhibit 2012 (LAR-IAC2 Product Guide), Exhibit 2020 (“GIS: Pictometry: Oblique Imagery training), Exhibit 2021 (“Pictometry License Guidelines”), and Exhibit 2022 (“Pictometry – April 19, 2007”). IPR2016-00594 FWD 5–17. We granted Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibit 2013 (article titled “Los Angeles County Extends its License Agreement with Pictometry for New Oblique Aerial Photos”), Exhibit 2014 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2015 (“Information about TXWILM Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2016 (“Pictometry Administrative Training”), Exhibit 2019 (“GIS Working Group Meeting Minutes”), Exhibit 2023 (“Welcome to Your End User Training”), Exhibit 2024 (“Electronic Field Study Getting Started Guide”), Exhibit 2025 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals1”), and Exhibit 2026 (“Pictometry Announces Technical Advancements for GIS Professionals2”). Id. We adopt the same findings and conclusions here. For the reasons explained in IPR2016-00594, we deny the motion to exclude Exhibits 1004, 1011, 2010, 2011, 2020, 2021, and 2022, but grant the motion to exclude Exhibits 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026. See id.” slip op. at 5
Patent outcomesUS 8,823,732 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,823,732 - Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 24, 2017 · IPR2016-00594 · APJ Bryan F Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Petitioner did not prove claims 1–10 and 13–20 unpatentable because it failed to establish that Pictometry was a publicly accessible printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMixed
“Mot. Reply 3. Given the sequence of events, there is no prejudice to Petitioner, who introduced these documents and was served objections at an early stage. Patent Owner apparently cited to the documents in its Patent Owner Response to preserve the right to substantively respond to these documents rather than wait to see if they were presented in Petitioner’s Reply. Pursuant to our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3), we do not dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude due to allegedly untimely filed objections.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable
“are also prohibited. Id. The MAPC Agreement states under “Confidentiality of Licensed Products” that the Licensed Products are commercially valuable, proprietary products owned by Pictometry and are treated by Pictometry as confidential and contain substantial trade secrets of Pictometry. Ex. 2009, 16, Article 8.4. The licensee agrees that it will not disclose, provide a copy of, or disseminate the Licensed Products and that its personnel will protect the Licensed Products from unauthorized use, disclosure, copying, and dissemination, and that access to the Licensed Products and each part thereof will be strictly limited. Id. We acknowledge that these represent significant limitations on the dissemination of the User Guide.” slip op. at 21
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“involving the EFS software and provides no evidence that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were actually maintained confidential by the parties of the MAPC Agreement, or that the EFS software and the EFS 2.7 User Guide were inaccessible to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Reply 9. However, this improperly puts the burden to disprove public accessibility on Patent Owner. Although Patent Owner challenges whether Pictometry is a printed publication, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in an inter partes review). Petitioner must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, and one aspect of such a showing is that the references relied upon are patents or printed publications. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b) 316(e).” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that Pictometry was publicly accessible so as to render it a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). C. Anticipation of Claims by Pictometry Petitioner asserts that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry. Pet. 16. As noted above, we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Pictometry is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Thus, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that that claims 1–10 and 13–20 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Pictometry.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,542,880 not shown unpatentable§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 8,542,880 - Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00591 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, 12-14, 16, 19, 22, and 23 are unpatentable as anticipated by Avrahami; claims 10, 15, and 25 were not shown obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner. Avrahami describes its algorithm as providing “for semi-automatic 3D spatial polygon extraction from a pair of colored aerial images with a known external model solution.” Ex. 1004, 43 (emphasis added). Avrahami touts that one of the advantages of its system is that “the operator can identify at a glance which buildings can be mapped by this method so as to combine it with traditional manual extraction or other semi-automatic method.” Id. at 48 (emphasis added). Further to this point, Figure 1 shows a side-by-side comparison of the images in the pair. See id. at Fig. 1 (displaying left and right polygons going through Avrahami’s iterative matching process). Further, we credit the testimony from Petitioner’s Expert, Mr. Schuch, that one skilled in the art would understand Avrahami’s images to be what “you see . . . on a computer screen” as “part of the production.” Ex. 2017, 69:20–21; see also id. at 71:2–4 (explaining that “[t]his is an actual production image”). Therefore, we find that Petitioner has proffered sufficient evidence that Avrahami discloses the disputed limitation.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s extensive evidence of nexus between its Render House and Twister products and the challenged claims. Patent Owner steps through each challenged claim on an element-by-element basis and directs us to images and specific passages from its Render House and Twister user guides that it argues embody the limitations of each challenged claim. PO. Resp. 50–58. Patent Owner also supports its assertion of nexus with testimony in the form of a Declaration from Dr. Chandrajit L. Bajaj that includes a claim chart detailing where each limitation of the challenged claim is found in its Twister and Render House products. Ex. 2010, 44–91.5 The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Patent Owner has put forth sufficient evidence to show that its Twister and Render House products embody the elements of the challenged claims and thus, we look to Petitioner to rebut this presumed nexus and acknowledge that the presumption “cannot be rebutted with mere argument; evidence must be put” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
“with the purportedly unique characteristics of the claimed invention and that for which there is alleged commercial success.” Reply 23–24. Our reviewing court has held that for evidence of commercial success to be relevant, “the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence of commercial success and the patented invention.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As noted above, however, Patent Owner has provided extensive evidence that the Twister and Render House products are coextensive with claims 10, 15, and 25 and that the reports sold were created using the Twister and Render House products. Thus, we are persuaded that nexus exists between the challenged claims and the commercially successful products at issue. Petitioner also asserts that “Patent Owner has failed to make any showing as to market share, thus rendering their sales figures irrelevant and not adequately defined.” Reply 24. Patent Owner provided unrebutted evidence that “approximately 96 percent of the top 25 insurance carriers rely on [Eagle View Technologies 3D aerial roof measurement reports] in their claims departments.” Ex. 2020, 1; see also Ex. 2029, 8 (Verisk Analytics presentation noting that 24 of top 25 insurance companies and 30,000 contractors are Eagle View customers). In addition, Patent Owner’s evidence shows that its products are used by “about one-fifth of the roofing contractor market, according to an estimate by market researcher IbisWorld.” Ex. 2024. Patent Owner’s financial reports show both that it sold a significant number of roofing reports and that its sales grew significantly between 2009 and 2015. See PO Resp. 60–61. We find that this information, taken together with statement from others in the industry (see Ex. 2029) gives us a view of Patent Owner’s place in the relevant market and persuades us that Patent Owner’s Twister and Render House products experienced significant commercial success and wide-spread use in the industry.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Skepticism / industry praiseDecided for patent owner
“iii. Industry Praise Praise from industry participants, especially competitors, is probative as to obviousness because such participants “are not likely to praise an obvious advance over the known art. Thus, if there is evidence of industry praise of the claimed invention in the record, it weighs in favor of the non-obviousness of the claimed invention.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Petitioner described Patent Owner’s products as “[u]sing aerial photography and patent-pending software [to] accurately calculate[] measurements for the roof’s ridges, rafters, valleys, slopes and more.” Ex. 2021, 1. Petitioner further noted that the “process saves contractors and roofers hours of time spent measuring and scoping a roof.” Id.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,209,152 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,209,152 - Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 14, 2017 · IPR2016-00590 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the asserted art lacked a required movable-marker limitation and objective indicia outweighed the obviousness evidence.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We do not agree with Petitioner that Avrahami’s pointing to and identifying seed points, constitutes movement of a first visual marker. Rather, as Patent Owner explains, “prior to the user’s click, the seed point does not exist, and thus there is nothing to move.” See PO Resp. 18 (citing 2008 ¶ 56). Avrahami’s characterization of the already-placed seed point as the “initial 2D seed point” supports Patent Owner’s position. See Ex. 1003, 44. The user cannot move an object that does not yet exist, and Petitioner offers no support to suggest that Avrahami’s seed points somehow exist before the user places them by clicking. See Pet. 14; Reply 2–4. There is also no indication that after placing the seed point, the user can move its location. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 56. To the contrary, Avrahami describes the algorithm as “fully automatic” after the user places the seed point. Ex. 1003, 43.” slip op. at 9
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We note that in Reply, Petitioner makes an alternative argument that “placement of subsequent seed points after placement of a first seed point, as well as the addition of segmentations around such seed points, qualifies as ‘movement.’” Reply 3. We decline to reach this argument, however, because Petitioner raised it for the first time in its Reply. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) (requiring that a petition must identify “the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge and the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” and explaining that “[t]he Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusDecided for patent owner
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Commercial successObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner
Patent outcomesUS 8,818,770 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,818,770
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.