• Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,110
• Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00212 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 11–14 were held unpatentable as obvious over Tajima and Foster or Foster and Hayhurst; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 4 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 41– 45). Petitioner further asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. At the institution stage, Patent Owner did not oppose Petitioner’s assertions or provide a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Rubin I Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of his declaration). We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 11. Post-institution, neither party has contested this description. See Rubin II Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s definition). For the reasons given, we maintain our previous description of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1005 ¶ 0111. Dr. Rubin testifies, succinctly, that “I do not believe that a [person of ordinary skill] would understand that Tajima uses the term ‘information regarding the key’ to refer to the key. If Tajima meant to say the ‘key,’ there would be no need to use the phrase ‘information regarding the key.’” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 41. He further testifies that “[w]hen Tajima wishes to refer to a ‘key,’ it does so directly” (citing many instances where Tajima makes explicit reference to keys). Id. ¶ 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 86, 88, 89). We find Dr. Rubin’s reasoning on this issue persuasive. On the other hand, we find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s response less convincing. Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 5–23. We find that he does not 5 Petitioner states that it does not rely on the doctrine of inherency to establish that this limitation is met by Tajima. Pet. Reply 2. understand that Tajima uses the terms “information regarding the key” and “key information” to refer to an encryption key. Id. ¶ 5 (citing Bhattacharjee I Decl. ¶ 103, 131). Lacking support for disclosure of an encryption key in Tajima itself, Dr. Bhattacharjee turns to other references, including Foster. Id. ¶¶ 7–9. Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies that “Foster’s use of the term ‘key information’ to describe information that includes the key and additional information . . . explains why Tajima did not just say ‘key’ when referring to the information attached to the data fragments.” Id. ¶ 8. Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony is unconvincing. In Foster, there is explicit disclosure of including the encrypted title key itself in the header extension. Ex. 1006 ¶ 66 (“As depicted, header extension 118 includes encrypted title key 112 . . . “). In contrast, Dr. Bhattacharjee cites no similar disclosure in Tajima. In fact, Dr. Bhattacharjee’s reliance on other references to support anticipation runs contrary to the rule that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). We do not find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony based on Foster and other references convincing of anticipation by Tajima. Nor do we find Petitioner’s alternative obviousness challenge based on Tajima persuasive. Pet. 22. The Petition includes a single-sentence explanation of this obviousness contention: “Even if Tajima had not disclosed that its key information includes the corresponding key, that would have been an obvious and conventional way to implement what Tajima discloses—i.e., a system that needs only the key information to decrypt data fragments and not additional key management infrastructure.” Id. (citing paragraph 104 of his initial declaration mirrors the Petition and provides no record citations to support his opinion of obviousness. Such unsupported expert testimony is entitled to little weight. “Expert testimony 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); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”).6” slip op. at 17

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

    “Patent Owner responds that Petitioner “fails to demonstrate” a motivation to combine the references. PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that “Tajima and Foster are directed to entirely different fields and to different problems.” Id. We disagree. As Petitioner points out, both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data, as is the ’116 patent. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 44; Ex. 1006 ¶ 3). Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies, “Tajima and Foster also both describe techniques for securing data using encryption and securely storing keys with encrypted data.” Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 109–114; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 64–71). Patent Owner argues Foster’s disclosure of a KEK would have been “redundant” to Tajima’s key-securing obfuscation technique. PO Resp. 18. We find this argument is unavailing. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s argument “ignores Tajima’s vulnerability that Foster’s key-encryption addresses.” Pet. Reply 16. More specifically, “[r]equiring an attacker to obtain KEKs to decrypt Tajima’s encryption keys in addition to de-obfuscating them is not ‘redundant’ to only having to de-obfuscate them.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis omitted) (citing Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 41–44). We find that Petitioner’s argument for combining the references is persuasive for the reasons given. Patent Owner further argues that Tajima and Foster address different problems and disclose solutions that are “fundamentally at odds.” PO Resp. 9–16, 25–27. Patent Owner asserts that “Foster’s system requires synchronizing the transmission of encrypted content packets with the keys used to encrypt those packets, so that each packet can be viewed immediately upon receipt.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner attaching it to a different data fragment, the problem Foster sought to solve is the ‘need . . . for a key used to encrypt content to be itself encrypted, and transmitted as an integral part of the [same] content.’” Id. (alterations in original) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 7). We are not persuaded by this argument. As noted supra, for the reasons given, we find that both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data from unauthorized access. Pet. Reply 13. Furthermore, as Petitioner points out, we find that in Petitioner’s combination of Tajima and Foster, Tajima’s data (which does not require synchronization) is secured, not Foster’s. See Pet. 34–36 (providing reasons for encrypting Tajima’s keys); Pet. Reply 17–18 (“Synchronization of Foster’s data is irrelevant to Tajima-Foster because Tajima-Foster does not restore Foster’s data.”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner’s argument based on the need to synchronize Foster’s data for streaming is unavailing. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments and find them lacking. See, e.g., Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, which repeats the arguments that Tajima and Foster are in a “different field,” “fundamentally at odds,” “[i]n direct contrast,” and that applying Foster’s KEK teachings to Tajima would be “redundant.” PO Sur-reply 2–9. For reasons already discussed, we find these arguments unconvincing. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has proved by a” slip op. at 21

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

    “Dr. Rubin explains that Kerckhoff’s Principle “holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge.” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 94. Citing this testimony, Patent Owner argues, “Shyu’s anti-piracy system is a prototypical attempt to achieve security through obscurity, to the extent it proposes to conceal or obscure the encryption algorithms.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner does not persuasively respond to this argument. Pet. Reply 20–21. Petitioner argues that “Shyu does not use secret algorithms.” Id. at 20. Instead, according to Petitioner “Shyu selects from among known algorithms to secure different data segments.” Id. However, we find Shyu’s disclosure that “the scrambling algorithm and the key word for the source data are dynamically changed to effectively guard against piracy” is telling evidence that the underlying algorithms themselves are not secure, and therefore Kerckhoff’s principle applies here. See Ex. 1016, 1:37–39. We also find persuasive reasoning in Patent Owner’s assertion that “[c]ombining associated with maintaining multiple encryption algorithms and tracking encryption algorithm ‘metadata,’ without providing any substantial security.” PO Resp. 34–35. In sum, for the reasons given, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tajima and Rivest. Further, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that even assuming that Tajima and Rivest would have been combined, a person of ordinary skill would have further combined their teachings with Shyu.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,178,116 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,178,116
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2019-00561 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claim 16 was held unpatentable as obvious over APA and Sikdar; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable over Sikdar and Wright.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contended “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’272 patent (i.e., May 30, 2007) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience with computer security systems and networks, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Jakobsson Decl. ¶ 49). In our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill over an alternative formulation by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic. FWD 17. However, we decided that we would reach the same result even under Dr. Medvidovic’s alternative formulation. Id. The level of ordinary skill adopted by us has not been further disputed by the parties, nor is it discussed in the Federal Circuit’s Decision. We therefore apply the same formulation for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 16, “Petitioner reads out any distinctions between ‘at least a subset’ and ‘a subset.’” PO Resp. 45. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board should reject Patent Owner’s argument that ‘the subset’ must be a ‘proper subset,’ i.e., a set that is less than the full set of outgoing data.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner cites dictionary definitions and other additional authorities to support this conclusion. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). For example, A Dictionary of Computing defines “subset” as “[a] set T whose members are all members of S,” and contrasts this with a “proper subset.” Ex. 1023, 3. Petitioner further points out that the antecedent basis of “at least a subset” for “the subset” in claim 16 supports its construction. Pet. Reply 6. In our Final Written Decision, after considering Petitioner’s evidence and the language of the claim, we found that the references to “subset” in claim 16 should be construed broadly enough to read on providing any portion of the outgoing data, up to and including all the data, and not a proper subset. FWD 24–25. For the reasons summarized above and those given in our Final Written Decision, we find that the term “subset” in claim 16 does not limit the claim to a “proper subset,” i.e., the claimed subset may include all the members of the set.” slip op. at 16

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

    “Applying the Federal Circuit’s “flexible” standard, we find that for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine Sikdar and the APA, as proposed by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and find that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Sikdar’s NAT/PAT capability to the prior art network system of Figure 18, disclosing a software-based firewall. Pet. 55–58; Pet. Reply 23–25. As Petitioner points out, Sikdar’s RSP “does not include any NICs . . . , which are a separate hardware component.” Pet. Reply 24. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument is not convincing. More importantly, however, Patent Owner’s argument fails because in Ground 3, Petitioner does not propose combining “any device containing two NICs with the APA.” Id. Petitioner proposes combining “the RSP’s NAT/PAT functionality with the APA.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Pet. 55–58) (emphasis added). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 34

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “non-obviousness, including long-felt need, failure of others, and skepticism by experts in the industry. PO Resp. 50–52. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Before reaching a decision on obviousness of claim 16, we must weigh these secondary considerations. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim scope. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We concluded, in our Final Written Decision, that Patent Owner had failed to meet its burden. FWD 47–50. We agreed with Petitioner that Patent Owner had failed to establish the required nexus to its claims. Id. at 49. We agreed also that Patent Owner had not provided convincing evidence supporting the existence of such objective indicia. Id. We find that, for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision, which we adopt for this Final Written Decision on Remand, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary factors is insubstantial and unconvincing, and we therefore give it minimal weight in considering the obviousness of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,365,272 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,365,272
• Forescout Technologies, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 25, 2023 · IPR2021-01329 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over Mahaffey; the other challenged claims were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that 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). For the purpose of our decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal on the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We find that the specification, therefore, supports Patent Owner’s argument that the term “web content filtering” differs from “web filtering”” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring IPR petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)) (emphasis added). This burden does not shift to Patent Owner, except in limited circumstances not present here. 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 IPR). By not providing a claim construction for a key term, “web content filtering,” Petitioner failed to live up to its obligation to provide an understandable explanation of the element-by-element specifics of the unpatentability challenges, including the particular portions of prior art supporting those challenges. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2), 42.104(b)(3)– (4); Harmonic Inc., 815 F.3d at 1363–64; Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intel. Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)); see also MModal LLC v. Nuance Communicatons, Inc., 846 Fed. Appx. 900, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non-precedential).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We are not persuaded by these belated arguments, as they are based entirely on testimony by Dr. Cole as to what a person of ordinary skill “would understand” that is unsupported by any citations to Syvanne or other evidence of record. Such unsupported opinions are not entitled to any weight. 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.”); see also Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35 (November 2019)8 (“The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. . . . However, the testimony must be based on sufficient facts and data.”); Fed. R. Evid. 702(b). “[E]xpert testimony cannot take the place of disclosure from patents or printed publications. In other words, 8 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” Consolidated Practice Guide at 36.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 9,894,034 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,894,034
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00836 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 28

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

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00835 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over Kiss and FIPA97; the remaining remanded claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed all of our determinations of unpatentability of challenged claims. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *1. The Federal Circuit also affirmed our “determination of no proven unpatentability of claims 29–47 of the ’115 patent and claims 50–51 and 53–55 of the ’560 patent.” Id. The Federal Circuit reversed certain findings we made in concluding that claims 8–10, 63, and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10, 11, and 28 of the ’560 patent had not been proven unpatentable and remanded for further consideration of those claims. Id. Upon our authorization (Paper 45), the parties filed additional briefing limited to addressing the remanded claims. See Petitioner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 50, “Pet. Remand Opening Br.”), Patent Owner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 51, “PO Remand Opening Br.”), Petitioner’s Remand Response Brief (Paper 53,” slip op. at 6

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

    “Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

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

    “In the context of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, Petitioner argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00814 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Kiss and FIPA97; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00811 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00810 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent were held unpatentable under §103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

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

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples. First, Petitioner did not explain during trial, nor does it explain on remand, why FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Machine Type and Language examples in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 78; see generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. In addition, Petitioner did not cite, nor does it cite on remand, any declaration generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Petitioner’s argument, therefore, is conclusory and unpersuasive as unsupported attorney argument. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Justservice.Net LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2022 · IPR2020-01258 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, 10, 13–16, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “We declined to decide whether Dropbox should have been named an RPI in the Petition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 2–4. Patent Owner did not raise the RPI issue in its post-institution Response. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has thus forfeited any RPI arguments. Reply at 24 (citing Unified Patents, LLC v. Mobility Workx, LLC, IPR2018- 00150, Paper 26 at 3 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2019) (RPI arguments waived if not in Response)). Therefore, we need not address this issue further.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Patent Owner’s definition as being consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected by the prior art. Dec. 10–11; 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 6 Patent Owner also submitted a supplemental declaration by Dr. Brogioli (Ex. 2031) with its Sur-Reply. We expunged that document from the record along with certain other exhibits (Exs. 2023–2030) as untimely presented under 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). Paper 37. Therefore, we do not take those documents into consideration for our analysis in this Decision. Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We continue to apply that same definition for our analysis in this Final Written Decision. We note, however, that there does not appear to be a significant difference between the parties’ respective definitions, so our analysis would not substantially differ under Petitioner’s definition.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Additionally, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Walker is not enabled, or that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Prust with Walker, because those arguments focus on features not required by the challenged claims of the ’868 patent. See Raytheon Tech. Corp. v. General Electric Co., 993 F.3d 1374) (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“In general, a prior art reference asserted under § 103 does not necessarily have to enable its own disclosure, i.e., be ‘self-enabling,’ to be relevant to the obviousness inquiry.”). Dr. Brogioli acknowledged that he never even analyzed whether the features of Walker that he argues are not enabling are required in the claims of the ’868 patent. Ex. 1032, 84:1-85:22 (testifying that he did not recall performing an analysis about whether the claims of the ’868 patent required allowing users to edit different parts of the same file at the same time, user collaboration, concurrency among user actions and editing, or locking a document). Moreover, other than pointing to the allegedly deficient teachings of Walker itself, Dr. Brogioli cites to no evidence of record in support of his testimony that a POSITA would not have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Walker. See Ex. 2022 ¶¶ 66–74. But Walker itself is presumed to be enabling for what it teaches. See In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] prior art printed publication . . . is presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by [the] patentee.”). Rather than the unsupported testimony of Dr. Brogioli, we credit the testimony of Dr. Long, which is corroborated by other prior art, that the concepts disclosed in Walker, such as indicating that downloaded files are currently locked and unavailable to other users and multi-user editing, would have been familiar to programming students before 2005, and a POSITA would have been able to apply these well-known techniques with a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 36–40, 67 (citing Ex. 1011–1017); Ex. 1033 ¶¶ 4–5.” slip op. at 39

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

    “we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s claim construction position that the claims require the virtual server to transmit information about files locally stored on the client device (in addition to virtual server files) as part of the fourth claim element. With regard to the claim language, we agree with Patent Owner that “the one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” recited in the fifth claim element finds antecedent basis in the prior recitation of “information relating to one or more files associated with the particular user storage account” in the fourth claim element. By its plain language, what this means is that at least some of the “information” that is transmitted from the virtual server under the fourth element must be related to the “userselected file” that is subsequently uploaded from the client device under the fifth element. Cf. Yamaha Corp. v. ESS Tech., Inc., 82 F.3d 435, 1996 WL 146499, *3 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“By using a definite article ‘the’ to describe ‘output’ in the last phrase, Yamaha raises the inference that the term refers to the same value as in the first step.”). Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we are not of the view that files referenced in the fourth and fifth elements are completely “distinct.” But this does not necessarily imply, as Patent Owner suggests, that the virtual server must already be in possession of information relating to locally stored files at the point of the transmitting step of the fourth element and prior to the uploading step of the fifth element. Indeed, there is nothing recited in the claims to suggest how the virtual server would come to know about files stored on the client device.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 10,476,868 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,476,868

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.