- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Portsmouth Network Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00503 · APJ Charles J Boudreau · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not cure the failure to show the claimed request and routing steps.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’279 patent in January 2001 “would have had a working knowledge of the network communication technologies that are pertinent to the ’279 patent, including network flow allocation in a ring topology.” Pet. 12. More specifically, Petitioner argues, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a master’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications and resource allocations,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Patent Owner represents that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition” for the purposes of its Response. PO Resp. 5. We find Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and the ’279 patent, and, therefore, we likewise adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any formal claim construction is necessary. See Pet. 12 (“Petitioner submits that, for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.”); PO Resp. 4 (“Here, at this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner will apply the ordinary and customary meaning to the ’279 Patent’s claim terms.”). Patent Owner notes, however, that Petitioner had asserted specific constructions in the Cisco litigation for the term “predetermined,” as recited in claims 1, 10, 14–16, and 18, and for the term “quantum.” PO Resp. 4. Specifically, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner proposed that “predetermined” be construed as “determined before the data flow request” and that “quantum” be construed as “an amount of a requested resource by which to increase or decrease.” Id. (citing Ex. 2007). Patent Owner contends asserted prior art combinations disclose or render obvious the challenged claims under these constructions. Id. Because our conclusion that Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable does not turn on the construction of either “predetermined” or “quantum,” there is no need for us to construe those terms. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We again are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. As an initial matter, we find no argument with respect to “best effort data traffic” or dropped packets in the Petition. See Tr. 12:10–21 (conceding that “the phrase ‘best effort’ was not in the Petition” but arguing that it was raised in response to the Patent Owner Response). Moreover, we are unable to identify any argument in the Patent Owner Response to which this line of argument is properly responsive, and Petitioner does not identify any such line of argument. Instead, Petitioner’s argument appears to advance belatedly a new theory. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 73–74, available at” slip op. at 43
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“We credit the supporting testimony of Dr. Olivier on the points discussed above, as it is explained sufficiently and consistent with the testimony simply mirrors the Petition and does not explain sufficiently why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kovvali in the manner Petitioner asserts. See Pet. 35; Reply 17–18; Ex. 1003 ¶ 83.” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 7,035,279 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,035,279 - Nuvei Technologies, Inc. v. Autoscribe CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00089 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Nuvei did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 would have been obvious over either asserted combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“providing” negative limitation of independent claim 1, and the similar negative limitations of independent claims 8, 15, 23, and 25. Accordingly, Nuvei has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its assertions that the subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 23, and 25 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Stringfellow and Kloster.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the art “would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years’ experience working with and programming networked computer systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Nuvei also argues that “[a]dditional education might substitute for some experience, and vice versa.” Id. In the Preliminary Response, Autoscribe does not address the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Nuvei’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with both the ’621 patent and the asserted prior art, and it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“The supporting testimony from Nuvei’s declarant, Dr. Almeroth, on these issues fare no better. Dr. Almeroth provides no additional explanation beyond the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition to support Nuvei’s assertion that Kloster does not provide the payment data token to the payer during its token retrieval functions. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 100.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“argument that Kloster does not teach the “without providing” negative limitation required by each independent claim. Nuvei appears to contend that Kloster teaches this limitation in two different ways—namely, through either a “call back URL” or “API calls by the merchant.” Pet. 50–51 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 15, 23) (citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 24). We address Nuvei’s contentions in turn.” slip op. at 21
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00300 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–12 on all asserted grounds and granted LG’s motion to join the Vizio IPR, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“ANALYSIS A. Institution of Inter Partes Review We instituted an inter partes review in the Vizio IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. Vizio IPR, Paper 12; see also Vizio IPR, Paper 1 (the “Vizio Petition”). Petitioner here challenges the same claims and asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as those on which we instituted the Vizio IPR. Compare Pet. 1–2, with Vizio Petition, 1–2. Petitioner also relies on an identical declaration from the same declarant as relied upon by the petitioner in the Vizio IPR. Mot. 1 (“[Petitioner] . . . relies upon the same expert declaration as relied upon in the Vizio IPR.”); Ex. 1003, 1 (cover page indicating Declaration of Henry Houh in support of the petition submitted in IPR2024-00723), 134 (signature page dated March 21, 2024). Because the grounds of unpatentability in the instant Petition are identical to those in the Vizio IPR, for the same reasons stated in our Decision to Institute in the Vizio IPR we institute inter partes review in this proceeding on the grounds presented in the Petition. See Vizio IPR, Paper 12, 12–41 (analyzing challenges in the Vizio Petition).” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because the “Petition is substantively identical to the petition in the Vizio IPR,” “challenging the same claims of the ’384 Patent on the same grounds while relying on the same prior art, arguments, and evidence,” and relying “upon the same expert declaration as relied upon in the Vizio IPR.” Mot. 1, 4–5. Petitioner represents that joinder will not impact the Vizio IPR schedule. Id. at 5–6. Petitioner also represents that it “explicitly agrees to take an ‘understudy’ role” and “will assume the primary role only if Vizio cease to participate in the Vizio IPR.” Id. at 6– 7.” slip op. at 11
NonePatents in suitUS 9,578,384 - PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2024-01450 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
Instituted inter partes review of claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Dziong and Sathyanath.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’088 patent (January 2006), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately four years of experience working in the field of network communications, including experience with [Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)] tunnels and bandwidth allocation,” where “[a]dditional work experience can substitute for specific educational background, and vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable and familiar with the network communications technologies discussed in [the Specification of the ’088 patent], including bandwidth reservations, quality of service techniques, routing protocols (including Open Shortest Path First (OSPF)), tunneling protocols (including [MPLS]), resource reservations (including Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP)), traffic engineering (including relevant extensions to OSPF, IS-IS, and RSVP), and ring networking standards (e.g., Synchronous Optical Network (SONET) and resilient packet ring (RPR) defined by IEEE 802.17). Id. Patent Owner states that “Petitioner’s definition . . . is acceptable for” purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 8 n.3. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’088 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’088 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art and apply it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner argues that “no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 12–13. Patent Owner does not propose interpretations of any claim terms in its Preliminary Response. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“Patent Owner, however, does not explain sufficiently why any of these issues demonstrate a failure to teach limitation [1.1]. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that Dziong identifies “two or more candidate routes” (i.e., A-B-C-D and A-C-D) for a “new connection” (i.e., a new recovery path to protect primary path SRLG 4 in the event of failure) with a “requested bandwidth” (i.e., 15 units) sufficient to protect against failure. See Pet. 27–31 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 70, 89, 90, 104, 105). The 15 units are the “units of demand” on SRLG 4 that must be protected. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89 (“[E]ach solid line represents all of the demands that have the same link-detour path, which is represented by a corresponding broken line. For example, solid line 606 in SRLG 4 corresponds to one or more demands totaling 15 units of bandwidth between nodes A and D.”), 90. A link in a potential recovery path for that demand on SRLG 4, therefore, would need to have “sufficient recovery bandwidth” to protect against failure (i.e., at least 15 units). Id. ¶¶ 36, 104. That is reflected in the “SRLG 4 failure” column of Figure 6(b) for link A-B (part of the A-B-C-D recovery path shown in blue in Figure 6(a) above). On this record, we do not see why the fact that link A-B also protects against failures of SRLG 3 and 5 and has its own 12 units of demand, or the fact that SRLG 4 also has another 24 units of demand (which link A-B does not protect against), contradicts Petitioner’s position regarding Dziong and limitation [1.1]. See id. ¶¶ 89–90 (“link A-B is not part of the link-detour path for the other 24 XC units of demand on SRLG 4”). At this stage, we find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that Dziong teaches limitation [1.1]. Therefore, we need not evaluate any additional arguments regarding Sathyanath at this time. See Pet. 31–32; Prelim. Resp. 14–16.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“We disagree based on the current record. Dziong refers to both “link-based” and “path-based” recovery. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 6–8. And the two methods are similar in various ways, as Dziong recognizes. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 69 (“While some of the algorithms utilized in a link-based scheme are related to path-based recovery algorithms, there are significant modifications and special considerations that are made in the case of link-based recovery.”), 103 (“In some areas, the issues associated with recovery path calculation for link-based recovery [are] analogous to recovery path calculations for path-based restoration . . . .”). Dziong also purports to incorporate Sathyanath’s application by reference. Id. ¶ 1. And, as Petitioner points out, the references have similar disclosures and similar discussions of bandwidth sharing. See Pet. 1, 20–22; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 10–12, 36–39, 60, 65, 88; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 4, 12–13, 41–45, 200. Thus, on this record, we disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider combining the teachings of Dziong and Sathyanath. See In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment.”); In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Second, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner “fails to identify specific teachings in Sathyanath that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been motivated to implement in Dziong with a reasonable expectation of success” and “does not explain how the features would have been combined or why there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Prelim. Resp. 11. Patent Owner, however, only mentions Petitioner’s introductory statement regarding reasons to combine and does not address the substance of Petitioner’s arguments for claim 1, where Petitioner explains how it is relying on Sathyanath as a secondary reference. See Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (citing Pet. 22–23). For example, regarding the “sharing definition” of limitation [1.2], Petitioner argues that because Dziong only gives “limited details about the data format used for sharing” reserved bandwidth information, “it would have been obvious to consider . . . Sathyanath’s examples,” relying on two particular alleged “sharing definition[s]” in Sathyanath (i.e., the “aggregate node-link vector” and “TE/Share database”). Pet. 36–39. Based on the current record, we preliminarily find that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing, supported by the testimony of Dr. Mir, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such data formats to share reserved bandwidth information in the system of Dziong, with a reasonable expectation of success. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–39, 72–79.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,596,088 - LG Electronics, Inc. / LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00696 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable under any of four §103 grounds because the cited combinations did not teach the claimed content-dependent first panel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Accordingly, we find: (1) the temporal “currently” (shown or displayed television content) term recited in steps 1.3 and 1.4.2, and (2) the associated temporal dependency resulting from the antecedent basis requirements of step 1.5.1, weigh strongly in favor of Patent Owner’s claim construction of claim 1 for the disputed step 1.5.1 claim terms “the application panel interface” and “based on” (emphases added).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find Patent Owner thus correctly concludes that “[o]ptions region[] 1020 [in Woods’ Figure 10] (which Petitioner corresponds to the step 1.5.1 “first content panel” Pet. 43) is not displayed based on the currently-displayed content, even if the displayed content happens to correspond to the selected program listing.” Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 174; PO Resp. 26–28; Ex. 2011 ¶ 148) (emphasis added). We find Options region 1020 in Woods’ Figure 10 is instead based on user selection as argued by Patent Owner. Sur-reply 7.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner on this point regarding Petitioner’s proposed combination of Woods and Machida, given that neither of the proposed versions of Woods’ options region 1020 (displaying general “cast information” in Figure 10), nor Woods’ options region 1020 (alternatively displaying “detailed information” about cast member “Milo” (as depicted in Fig. 11) when the “DETAIL INFO” tab is selected by the user in functions menu bar 1010 of Fig. 10), performs playback of content display in media region 1030. See also Ex. 1005, Fig. 11.” slip op. at 53
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Based upon our review of the complete record, we credit Dr. Surati’s testimony that the information in Woods’ options region 1020 (i.e., the first content panel as mapped by Petitioner (Pet. 43; Pet. Reply 16–17)), is determined independently of any currently displayed program content, and what is displayed (e.g., the cast of “Heroes” as depicted in Figure 10) is in fact based on the selected program listing, which does not teach or suggest 1.5.1 (nor recitation 1.5.2 “wherein the first content panel is a first type of application panel”). Ex. 2011 ¶ 143. We find persuasive Dr. Surati’s testimony that “a POSITA would readily understand that the information displayed [in Woods’] region 1020 [of Figure 10] is based on the selected program listing (e.g., Heroes 912) made by the user in Figure 9, not the currently-displayed content in media region 1030 of Figure 10.” Id. (emphases added). In support, Dr. Surati further testifies that “[i]n fact, region 1020 of Figure 10 presents information about the selected program listing for Heroes and is not based on the Mercedes advertisement displayed in media region 1030.” Id.; see also id. at ¶ 144 (depicting Ex. 1005, Fig. 10 above paragraph 144) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 9,247,174 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,247,174 - PTAB · Feb 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01143 · APJ St John Courtenay III · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–8 were unpatentable under any of its anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“Verizon Wireless, Ericsson Inc., and Nokia of America Corporation (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–8 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,664,059 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’059 patent”). Innovative Sonic Limited (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 13, “Prelim. Reply”) and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 14, “Prelim. Sur-reply”), each of which is narrowly tailored to address Petitioner’s stipulation provided in response to Patent Owner’s arguments for discretionary denial under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (Order Authorizing Supplemental Briefing on Discretionary Denial) (precedential), and the resulting impact of that stipulation.1” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the “[p]etition equates [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables ‘V(A)’ and ‘V(S)’ with the ’059 [p]atent specification’s ‘VT(A)’ and ‘VT(S)’, instead of mapping [3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification’s] variables to the claim language.” Prelim. Resp. 21-22 (citing Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 81)) (emphasis added). As noted above, anticipation of a patent claim requires a finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference. See Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1346. This requires Petitioner to read or “map” each limitation of claim 1 to the corresponding feature found in the 3GPP-4.60- v860-Specification. Petitioner has not done so here.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“As an initial matter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit guides that, “[e]ven when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). But here, we note the evidence relied upon to support Petitioner’s proposed motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860- Specification is found in paragraphs 98–100 of Dr. Hass’s declaration (Ex. 1002), which merely repeat the identical language from pages 33–35 of the Petition. We thus find this declaration evidence unpersuasive because it is conclusory, and it does not set forth a suggestion or motivation to modify the 3GPP-4.60-v860-Specification. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 98–100.” slip op. at 27
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,664,059 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01144 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because AT&T failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–22 were obvious over either Nokia and the 3GPP-Standard or Ericsson and the 3GPP-Standard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“§ 42.4(a), we may not institute an IPR unless the information presented in the Petition and any responses thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Taking into account Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Response, AT&T’s Preliminary Reply, and Innovative Sonic’s Preliminary Sur-reply, we conclude that the information 1 We do not reach whether we should exercise our discretion to deny the Petition under Fintiv because, as we explain below, we deny the Petition based on the merits. See infra Sections II.B.5 and II.C.1. presented in the Petition does not establish that there is a reasonable likelihood that AT&T would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 1–22 of the ’489 patent is unpatentable. We, therefore, deny AT&T’s Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Relying on the testimony of Dr. Hansen, AT&T argues the following: [a]s of the earliest claimed priority date, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’489 patent . . . would have had a [Bachelor of Science] in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks. More education may supplement practical experience or vice versa. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 368). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic does not address AT&T’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt AT&T’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’489 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“issue fares no better. With one exception, Dr. Hansen, relies on the same disclosures of the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0 to support his testimony, which, as we explain above, does not account for the plain language of the disputed limitation. Compare Pet. 26–27, 43, with Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 87–90. In addition, Dr. Hansen testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with one or more SCells would necessarily include the configuring of at least one SCell by a source eNB to a UE.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 91 (emphasis added). But neither AT&T nor Dr. Hansen establish inherency in its obviousness analysis. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194– 95 (Fed Cir. 2014) (recognizing that “inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis,” but limiting the doctrine of inherency “only when the limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art elements” (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581 (C.C.P.A. 1981)). Apart from the conclusory assertion above, Dr. Hansen does not identify sufficient evidentiary support demonstrating that the requirement identically recited in each of independent claims 1 and 12 of “configuring at least one SCell by a source eNB to a User Equipment (UE)” would have been the “natural result” flowing from the Update for 3GPP TS 36.331 v.9.4.0’s disclosure of the E-UTRAN configuring the UE with at least one SCell. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195. Accordingly, we do not credit Dr. Hansen’s testimony that implicates the doctrine of inherency because it not supported by evidence of record.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Petition, AT&T contends that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any [claim] terms to resolve the arguments presented herein” because the asserted prior art “discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 (Declaration of Dr. Christopher Hansen) ¶ 456). In the Preliminary Response, Innovative Sonic “agrees with [AT&T] that no [claim] term needs to be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Pet. 14). For purposes of this Decision, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,237,489 - PTAB · Jan 29, 2025 · IPR2024-01159 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–27 were unpatentable over the asserted PayPal-based obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We must look to all the intrinsic evidence of record, including the claim language itself, the specification of the ’621 patent, and its prosecution history, to determine whether the “providing” steps of independent claims 1, 8, and 25, and the “receiving” step of independent claims 15 and 23, should be limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” See, e.g., DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Autoscribe’s argument that PayPal Express Checkout does not teach the “providing” steps of independent claim 1 and 25 and the “receiving” step of independent claim 15 for two reasons. First, as we explain in our claim construction analysis above, we decline to adopt M&A Ventures’s proposed construction of the “providing” and “receiving” steps as being limited temporally such that not providing the data token to the payer only occurs “during execution of the token retrieval function.” Instead, we construe the “providing” and “receiving” steps in accordance with their plain and ordinary meanings, which includes giving the negative limitation recited therein (i.e., not providing the data token to the payer) patentable weight, without limiting the occurrence of this negative limitation during execution of the token retrieval function. See supra Section II.A.1. With this construction in mind, step 4 of the PayPal Express Checkout flow run in the sandbox environment plainly sends the Payer ID, which M&A Ventures maps to the claimed “data token,” to the buyer. Ex. 1006, 17, 25–26; see also Pet. 64 (arguing PayPal’s Payer ID teaches the “non-sensitive electronic data token” (emphasis omitted)), 67 (arguing the same). Because PayPal sends the Payer ID to the buyer during the PayPal Express Checkout flow, PayPal provides the data token to the payer and, therefore, violates the negative limitation required by the “providing” and “receiving” steps.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,620,621 - Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00722 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because it could not determine with reasonable certainty the scope of “a different user interface device” to assess the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After considering the determinations in the District Court Order, we agree with the district court that we cannot ascertain with reasonable certainty the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device.” See Ex. 2001, 25 (the district court explaining that “‘user interface device’ in the claim and in view of the intrinsic evidence, as emphasized by counsel’s 3 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated . reasonable certainty those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.”). As the district court found, the ’168 patent specification uses the term “user interface device” inconsistently, for example, describing “four different user interface devices” in a navigation bar including the “movies user interface device 2204” in Figure 22A. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1001, 45:19–20, 45:27–29). Additionally, the specification appears to describe user interface devices with reference to the rows in Figure 22B, and other parts of the specification also describe selectable interface elements as “user interface device[s].” Ex. 1001, 45:33–37 (cited at Ex. 2001, 23–24), 41:31– 45, 46:67–47:2, 47:18–21, 48:18–20. Still further, the specification appears to describe a menu as a type of user interface device. Id. at 49:3–5 (cited at Ex. 2001, 24), 51:17–19 (same). In addition to these citations from the District Court Order, we note that the term “user interface device” is used when describing a user selecting a specific year from a display of years provided on a user interface: “If user selection 1460 is selected by the user using a user interface device, a new user interface presentation is provided.” Id. at 40:39–46 (emphasis added). On the record before us, we agree with the district court that, based on the ambiguity in the specification, “it is indiscernible what subset of the user interface, if any, is the user interface device.” Ex. 2001, 24. Therefore, we conclude that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot reached
“an analysis to assess “whether the prior art discloses rendering something other than the second navigation bar” if a second user interface cannot contain that second navigation bar. Prelim. Reply 3–4. But our goal would not be to determine whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering something other than the second navigation bar” (Prelim. Reply 3), but rather whether the prior art teaches or suggests “rendering a different user interface device” (Ex. 1001, 55:26–29). In Samsung, the Federal Circuit notes that “the proper course for the Board to follow, if it cannot ascertain the scope of a claim with reasonable certainty for the purposes of assessing patentability, is to decline to institute the IPR or, if the indefiniteness issue affects only certain claims, to conclude that it could not reach a decision on keeping with this general direction from our reviewing court, and because no exception curing the impossibility of reaching a determination regarding unpatentability appears in this case, we do not institute an inter partes review. Given our conclusion that we cannot determine the scope of the claim term “a different user interface device” with reasonable certainty for purposes of assessing patentability, we decline to institute inter partes review on the grounds presented.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,168
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.