- PTAB · Dec 27, 2022 · IPR2022-01147 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim obvious over the asserted reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any claim challenged in the Petition. Thus, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at least a bachelor of science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related discipline, with at least two years of relevant experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional education or industry experience may compensate for a deficit in one of the other aspects of the requirements stated above.” Id. Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. To determine whether to institute, we also apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction We need only construe terms that are in controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“The closest that Petitioner comes to addressing the recited VAD with Weinstein is by stating that “[a] POSITA would have understood that ‘there is no coupling of the desired signal into the reference sensor, i.e., when the actual coupling system H21 is zero,’ occurs when the desired signal, e.g., speech, is absent.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 92). Notably, the only support for this conclusion is the Kenny Declaration, which simply repeats this statement verbatim without any citation to the evidence of record. Compare id., with Ex. 1003 ¶ 92. We agree with Patent Owner that the “conclusion is wholly unsupported by evidence.” PO Resp. 12. And “[e]xpert 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). But, even assuming Petitioner’s conclusion is correct and crediting Dr. Kenny’s testimony, the Petition does not explain sufficiently how a VAD signal in the Hietanen-Burnett combination is related to the period in which speech is alleged to be absent in Weinstein. See Pet. 25.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,019,091 - PTAB · Dec 2, 2022 · IPR2022-00951 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–11 on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’240 patent on all of the asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“1 We apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”). See Ex. 1001, code (22). 2 Petitioner does not list claim 1 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claim 1 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 56– 57. 3 Petitioner does not list claims 1and 4 in its table on page 3, but Petitioner provides argument as to claims 1 and 4 in its discussion of the ground. See Pet. 73. 4 Petitioner argues that the Fintiv factors weigh against discretionary denial. Pet. 77–78; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). Because Patent Owner does not argue for discretionary denial, we see no need to consider the issue further.” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“educational level of active workers in the field.” Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Elekta Inc., 46 F.4th 1346, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). The parties are in general agreement as to the level of education (undergraduate degree in electrical engineering or equivalent) and the number of years of experience working with RFID devices (1–2 years), but differ as to the exact nature of that experience (developing antennae used in RFID devices versus developing antennae used in RFID devices for inductive coupling). The specification of the ’240 patent describes its technical field as relating to “‘secure documents’ …having RFID (radio frequency identification) chips …operating in contactless mode (ISO 14443) including dual interface (‘DI’, or ‘DIF’) cards which can also operate in contact mode (ISO 7816-2), and more particularly to improving coupling between components within the smart card …and consequent improvements in interacting with external RFID readers.” Ex. 1001, 1:24–34. The specification discusses both inductive and capacitive coupling. See e.g., id. at 6:55–58. Patent Owner submitted into the record a text titled RFID Handbook, which details different frequencies and types of coupling that may be at use by various RFID systems. See Ex. 20035, 22–23. Although this text differentiates between “inductively or capacitively coupled system[s] and microwave system[s] or backscatter system[s]” (id. at 23 (emphasis omitted)), its description of each of these types of RFID devices indicates that an ordinary artisan would have had experience with RFID devices generally. Thus, on the record currently before us, we are not persuaded that the level of 5 Our citations are to the native page numbers in the document and not Patent Owner’s numbering. devices that are used for inductive coupling. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and 1– 2 years of experience researching and developing antennas used in RFID applications.” See Pet. 8.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“B. Dr. van der Weide’s Level of Experience Patent Owner argues that we should not give substantial weight to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. van der Weide, because he “lacks relevant experience to provide opinions through the lens of a [person having ordinary skill in the art].” Prelim. Resp. 27–28 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 71–72. According to Patent Owner, Dr. van der Weide “has experience with RFID that operates at microwave frequencies,” but “identifies no experience with relevant inductive RFID systems at lower frequencies (e.g., frequencies such as 13.56MHz and 8.2MHz).” Id. at 27. This argument is based on Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we have not adopted. Based on the current record, Dr. van der Weide’s education and experience are sufficient to allow us to grant his testimony our full consideration. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 2–7.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,165,240 - Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 28, 2022 · IPR2022-00888 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution: Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1–13, and trying claim 42 alone would be inefficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1 and Petitioner does not rely on Boll or Buck for teaching a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1, Petitioner does not establish sufficiently for purposes of institution that the combined disclosures in Elko, Boll, and Buck teach claim 1’s subject matter. See Pet. 23–25; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58; supra § IV.D.4(a). Hence, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in proving claim 1 unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Elko, Boll, and Buck.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“for purposes of institution that Elko discloses a “first virtual microphone” according to claim 1. See Pet. 23–25, 36–38; Prelim. Reply 1–2; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 55–58, 81–82. For forming the “first virtual microphone” and the “second virtual microphone” claim 1 recites three different signals: “a first signal,” “a second signal,” and “a first intermediate signal” formed by applying a filter to “the first signal.” Ex. 1001, 37:5–9, 37:16–19. “Different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp., 533 F.3d 1362, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,” slip op. at 30
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“the ’213 patent. Pet. 3, 23–83. As discussed above, Petitioner fails to satisfy the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for four of the five challenges and thirteen of the fourteen challenged claims. See supra §§ IV.D–IV.E. At best, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” institution standard for only one of the five challenges and only one of the 6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. fourteen challenged claims. See supra § IV.F. These circumstances weigh in favor of exercising our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution. See, e.g., Netscout Sys., Inc. v. Longhorn HD LLC, IPR2021-01258, Paper 11 at 23–24 (PTAB Feb. 10, 2022) (exercising discretion to deny institution); Sling TV L.L.C. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2019-01391, Paper 7 at 25–27 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2020) (exercising discretion to deny institution).” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,321,213 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00883 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji, Sarafa, and Oh.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“PO Resp. 67. As with the dispute regarding Petitioner’s proposed combination of Sarafa with Ji, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that only Ji’s message operation bar approach makes sense for adding another feature, such as for adding features from Oh. For the reasons discussed above in Section III.C.4.b).(4).(b), Petitioner persuades us otherwise. c) Conclusion Regarding Claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 Petitioner supports its position that claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 would have been obvious over Ji, Sarafa, Oh by explaining in detail its position that it would have been obvious to combine Ji’s, Sarafa’s, and Oh’s teachings, as well as its position that, in combination, the references teach every limitation of independent claims claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30. Pet. 14–72. Having reviewed all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9, 11–20, 22–28, and 30 of the ’192 patent would have been obvious over Ji, Sarafa, and Oh. Pet. 4–72; PO Resp. 6–69; Pet. Reply 1–25; PO Sur-reply 4–25.” slip op. at 80
Patent outcomesUS 10,728,192 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,728,192 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 23, 2022 · IPR2021-00882 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–23 are unpatentable as obvious over Ji and Sarafa; the Board did not reach the Ji, Sarafa, and Oh ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that the arguments in sub-section 2 on pages 8–9 of Petitioner’s Reply are improper new arguments. Rather, we find these arguments properly elaborate on the Petition, in response to the proposed construction of “link” in Patent Owner’s Response. Although we agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not include the phrase “quoted message identifier,” Sarafa explains that the quoted message cited in the Petition and the “quoted message identifier” are part of the same message package. E.g., Ex. 1007 ¶ 83. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s citation of the quoted message in the Petition and then the quoted message identifier in the Reply is like if I have a patent to some kind of car and someone points to a Porsche and says, look, the Porsche has an engine, and then we argue about an engine, and then they come back and say, well, we're referring to the turbo charger in the engine in their reply, even though they never mention turbo charger, and said that's the key, it's like, well, we weren't on notice of that. Tr. 71:2–9. We find this unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not explain why a reply that cites a subcomponent of an item cited in the petition would necessarily go beyond properly elaborating on the arguments in the petition.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed definition reasonable and consistent with the prior art before us. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (determining that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err in concluding that the level of ordinary skill in the art was best determined by the references of record). Accordingly, we apply the level of skill identified by Petitioner. Additionally, we agree with Patent Owner that the level of skill it identifies differs very little from Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, and our analysis below would be the same under either party’s identified level of skill.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In order to resolve the parties’ patentability dispute, we only need to resolve whether the correct construction of “link” requires using an address specifically (rather than data generally) to “point to” a message. We find the record lacks persuasive support for such a construction. Looking to the ’198 patent itself first, neither the claims nor the Specification says anything about “point[ing] to” a message or another resource. See generally Ex. 1001. The ’198 patent mentions “address” only once, and that passage refers to a person’s address, not a message’s address. Id. at 12:29–33. Additionally, Patent Owner does not cite any other intrinsic evidence, such as the prosecution history of the ’198 patent, supporting a construction of “link” requiring a message’s address. See, e.g., PO Resp. 10–12; PO Sur-reply 2–7.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ji and Sarafa. As explained below, Petitioner persuades us that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Ji teaches automatic scrolling, and that Sarafa’s automatic scrolling would have beneficially complemented Ji’s. Pet. 21–22; Pet. Reply 14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 75–77; Ex. 1018 ¶ 47. Additionally, regardless of whether Ji teaches automatic scrolling in paragraph 92, Petitioner persuades us that Ji and Sarafa address similar problems related to tracking and understanding convoluted conversations in messaging systems. See Pet. 16–21; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64, 65, 70, 73, 74. As Dr. Cockburn testifies, Ji emphasizes the problem that users cannot quickly find and understand messages in complicated message streams. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 2); Pet. 16. Petitioner also persuades us that Sarafa addresses such problems, at least in part, by expressly teaching certain advantages of its scroll-back feature, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered it advantageous to add Sarafa’s scroll-back feature to Ji’s system. See Pet. 18–19; 21–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. For example, addressing the same problems discussed in Ji, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature would facilitate a user’s ability to understand a complicated conversation because “[m]aking available the context of a quoted message may benefit a user in understanding a quoted message by providing messages that were displayed before and/or after the quoted message so as to play the quoted message in context.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 90; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Similarly, Sarafa explains that its scroll back feature “provid[es] additional context to users . . . , improving the user experience of quoted messages for its users.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 23; Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. We find that these disclosed benefits would have provided compelling motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to add Sarafa’s scroll back feature to Ji’s messaging system. Pet. 19–23; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73–77. Indeed, as Dr. Cockburn explains, “[s]ince Ji also quotes the original message in the reply, Sarafa would therefore be a natural complement to Ji.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 77.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 9,860,198 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,860,198 - Google LLC v. Jawbone Innovations, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00889 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 29–44 obvious, principally because it did not adequately explain why an artisan would add a delay to Elko’s first microphone …
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not found
“microphone channel to the first microphone channel when implementing the dual-filter alternative suggested by Elko.14 Pet. 29–31. However, Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain why an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to implement that dual-filter alternative by relocating the delay to the first microphone channel. Although Petitioner states that its proposed modification “would account for sound propagation from different directions in the dual filter embodiment” (id. at 30–31), this is conclusory and insufficiently explained, particularly given Elko’s disclosure. Petitioner is correct that Elko suggests a dual-filter alternative. Ex. 1002, 11:15–20. Specifically, after describing the Figure 10 embodiment, Elko states that “[i]t might be desirable to filter both input channels to exclude signals that are out of the desired frequency band.” Id. at 11:15–16. Specifically, Elko suggests including “two adaptive filters like filter 1020 shown in FIG. 10, to adjust the two sensing microphones,” as well as a third microphone to serve as the reference. Id. at 11:16–20. But Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain why an ordinary artisan would have relocated delay 1022 when implementing this alternative. Petitioner’s refers to a need to “account for sound propagation from different directions” (Pet. 30–31), but Elko’s adaptive filter already does this. Elko specifically states that filter 1020 accounts for changes in the location of the desired source signal. See Ex. 1002, 11:21–24 (“[U]sing an adaptive filter also allows for the compensation of modal variation in the orientation of the array relative to the desired source.”);15 see also id. at 10:34–55 (noting that” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Finally, although Petitioner relies upon Dr. Vipperman’s declaration, the cited passages simply mirror the language in the Petition. Compare Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 63–66, with Pet. 29–31. As a result, Dr. Vipperman’s testimony does not remedy the Petition’s deficiencies. 37 C.F.R § 42.65(a) (conclusory testimony is entitled to little or no weight); cf. TQ Delta, 942 F.3d at 1358 (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”).” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’611 patent and the asserted prior art. 8 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Vipperman. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 23.” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,326,611 - Solaredge Technologies, Inc v. Fronius International GmbHInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2022 · IPR2022-00849 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–7 obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We find Petitioner’s challenges fail because the same structures cannot be both the claimed housing and the contact-making system. The atissue claim language supports that the housing and contact-making system are distinct structures. “Where,” as here, “a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Beyond listing the housing and contact-making systems separately, claim 1 recites “wherein in the upper and lower housing parts, parts of the contact-making system are arranged.” Ex. 1001, 7:29–30. Because a structure cannot be arranged in itself, the housing and contact-making system must be distinct. Beyond the claim’s language, the ’919 patent’s specification also consistently describes the housing and contact-making structures as distinct. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3, 5:15–20, 6:32–37, 6:48–49, 6:62–64. Because Petitioner does not identify separate structures in the asserted references for the claimed housing and contact-making system, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing claims 1–7 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find Petitioner’s challenges fail because the same structures cannot be both the claimed housing and the contact-making system. The atissue claim language supports that the housing and contact-making system are distinct structures. “Where,” as here, “a claim lists elements separately, the clear implication of the claim language is that those elements are distinct component[s] of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Beyond listing the housing and contact-making systems separately, claim 1 recites “wherein in the upper and lower housing parts, parts of the contact-making system are arranged.” Ex. 1001, 7:29–30. Because a structure cannot be arranged in itself, the housing and contact-making system must be distinct. Beyond the claim’s language, the ’919 patent’s specification also consistently describes the housing and contact-making structures as distinct. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 2, 3, 5:15–20, 6:32–37, 6:48–49, 6:62–64. Because Petitioner does not identify separate structures in the asserted references for the claimed housing and contact-making system, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing claims 1–7 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We find no claim terms require express construction for us to determine whether or not to institute inter partes review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“industry experience.” Pet. 7. Further, “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage in the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears commensurate with the level of ordinary skill as reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’919 patent.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,137,919 - Cloudflare, Inc. / Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 18, 2022 · IPR2022-00228 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, and 39–44 are unpatentable under §103; claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 are not shown unpatentable over Yung alone.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject” and “3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). In the Institution Decision, we adopted this articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. At trial, neither party disputed our preliminary finding. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. We remain persuaded that this articulation of the level of skill in the art is supported by the ’593 patent, the asserted prior art, and Dr. Jeffay’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject and 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesTerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends the challenged claims include means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and for each, Petitioner identifies a construction for use in this proceeding. Pet. 11– 14.12 Petitioner submits that no other terms require construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at 12. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the identified limitations are means-plus-function limitations. Inst. Dec. 16 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”)). We also stated that we were persuaded that Petitioner had correctly identified the recited functions and the components in the Specification that perform those functions. Id. at 16– 17. As a result, we preliminarily adopted the following constructions: Limitation” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“Instead, Patent Owner points to the Specification, but this also fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Although claims are read in view of the Specification (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315), they are not limited to the embodiments disclosed in it (id. at 1323). Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the Specification that could be read as redefining this claim phrase or disavowing part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In fact, the passages cited by Patent Owner are directed to the handling of a single flow, and none expressly indicates that an identical method must be used for each flow processed. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–31, 7:51–52, 8:12–17. Thus, we determine that the Specification does not justify importing the limitation proposed by Patent Owner into the claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that claims 9 and 29 require computing a badness factor for each flow or all flows; rather, this claim limitation may be satisfied by computing a badness factor for a single flow.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“3. Other constructions The parties do not propose constructions for any other terms or phrases. See Pet. 11–14; PO Resp. Based on the record before us, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms or phrases. 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 12
Patent outcomesUS 8,243,593 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,243,593 - Cloudflare, Inc. / Splunk Inc. v. Sable Networks, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 18, 2022 · IPR2021-00909 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 9–13, 19–24, 29–33, and 39–44 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 17, 18, 37, and 38 were not shown unpatentable over Yung.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject” and “3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). In the Institution Decision, we adopted this articulation of the level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. At trial, neither party disputed our preliminary finding. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply. We remain persuaded that this articulation of the level of skill in the art is supported by the ’593 patent, the asserted prior art, and Dr. Jeffay’s testimony. See Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27). Accordingly, we determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to an undergraduate degree (or equivalent) in electrical engineering, computer science, or comparable subject and 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in computer networking or comparable industry experience.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“1. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends the challenged claims include means-plus-function limitations that should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and for each, Petitioner identifies a construction for use in this proceeding. Pet. 11– 14.12 Petitioner submits that no other terms require construction for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at 12. In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner that the identified limitations are means-plus-function limitations. Inst. Dec. 16 (citing Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”)). We also stated that we were persuaded that Petitioner had correctly identified the recited functions and the components in the Specification that perform those functions. Id. at 16– 17. As a result, we preliminarily adopted the following constructions: Limitation” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for patent owner
“In particular, claim 9 recites a method for processing a flow that includes computing a badness factor for the flow. Ex. 1001, 11:63–8. Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no limitation that requires a badness factor to be computed for each flow. Inst. Dec. 44 (addressing substantially similar argument presented in preliminary response); see also Ex. 1001, 13:32–44 (claim 29). During trial, Patent Owner neither responds to this analysis nor points to a claim limitation that allegedly includes this requirement. Instead, Patent Owner points to the Specification, but this also fails to support Patent Owner’s contention. Although claims are read in view of the Specification (Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315), they are not limited to the embodiments disclosed in it (id. at 1323). Patent Owner identifies (and we perceive) no passage in the Specification that could be read as redefining this claim phrase or disavowing part of its scope. See Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In fact, the passages cited by Patent Owner are directed to the handling of a single flow, and none expressly indicates that an identical method must be used for each flow processed. See Ex. 1001, 6:25–31, 7:51–52, 8:12–17. Thus, we determine that the Specification does not justify importing the limitation proposed by Patent Owner into the claims. Accordingly, having reviewed the intrinsic record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that claims 9 and 29 require computing a badness factor for each flow or all flows; rather, this claim limitation may be satisfied by computing a badness factor for a single flow.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we are persuaded that Copeland discloses this limitation. Copeland analyzes a flow’s statistics (including start time, end time, number of bytes, and number of packets) “to determine if the flow appears to be legitimate traffic or possible suspicious activity” and computes a concern index for the flow if it appears suspicious. E.g., Ex. 1007, 3:31–35, 7:38–67, 16:36–17:5. We find that Copeland’s concern index qualifies as a “badness factor for the flow . . . [that] provides an indication of whether the flow is exhibiting undesirable behavior,” as required by claim 9. E.g., Ex. 1007, 3:31–40, 4:30–33, Fig. 1 (identifying “‘bad’ flow(s)”). As Dr. Jeffay explains, an ordinary artisan would have understood that suspicious activity (such as a probe or network attack) is undesirable behavior. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 211–212. We also find that Copeland teaches computing a concern index “based at least partially upon the set of behavioral statistics” because, for example, it uses the number of packets to compute the concern index. Ex. 1007, 7:64–67, Fig. 6 (setting concern index to number of packets); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 213.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,243,593 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,243,593 - PTAB · Oct 14, 2022 · IPR2022-00741 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 on all six asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the MIT2002, MIT2003, and MIT2004 combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,355,975 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’975 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Rex Computing, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). An inter partes review may not be instituted on fewer than all claims challenged in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’975 patent was filed. Pet. 6. Relying upon the Conte Declaration, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of microprocessor design or a similar field. . . . and more experience would compensate for less formal education, 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. Accordingly, we do not consider this aspect of the obviousness analysis at this preliminary stage of the proceeding. and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 27–30). At this juncture, Patent Owner has not provided an assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is supported by the Conte Declaration and is consistent with the ’975 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“of any claim term is necessary at the institution stage. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Patent Owner asserts that the different litigation constructions need not be resolved because institution should be denied for other reasons, relying on the plain language of the claims. However, because Patent Owner addresses the interpretation of “data packet” in contesting Petitioner’s application of Olofsson, further briefing on the construction of that term is recommended. Id. at 8. “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree that no constructions are required at this preliminary stage for the above-disputed terms; therefore, we do not directly address the parties’ proposed constructions, except as discussed, infra, with respect to the asserted contentions of obviousness.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“threshold showing that these references are prior art patents or printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102. See Pet. 3–4; Ex. 1005, codes (22), (43); Ex. 1006, codes (22), (45); Ex. 1007, codes (22), (63). With respect to MIT2002, MIT2003, and MIT2004, Petitioner relies upon a declaration of Dr. Sylvia Hall-Ellis to establish the provenance of these references. Pet. 10. Dr. Hall-Ellis states that MIT2002 was “available on March 1, 2002, in the ACM Digital Library and on August 7, 2002, in the IEEE Xplore database.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 51. Dr. Hall-Ellis further states that the IEEE Micro article publication became publicly available on, or shortly after, April 17, 2002. Id. ¶ 53.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,355,975
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.