- PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01137 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 and 9–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Our consideration of discretionary denials is guided by the Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, issued on June 21, 2022 (“Memorandum”).7 The Memorandum states that, consistent with Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Massimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential), “the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB.” Memorandum, 3 (footnote and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c. Discussion At this stage, we preliminarily determine Petitioner has shown that Nakajima teaches or reasonably suggests each element of claim 1, but we encourage the parties to develop the record regarding the meaning of “pivotal about an axis” as recited in Limitation 1[b][3][i] during the trial phase. As cited by Petitioner, from the closed position, for example, the Nakajima’s mouthpiece would appear to move based on clockwise rotation about hinge shaft 19. Pet. 35. Patent Owner appears correct that at some point in the opening (or closing) process, Nakajima’s mouthpiece additionally moves based on rotation about protrusions 25. Prelim. Resp. 44–45. At this stage, we preliminarily determine that such additional rotation is not foreclosed by the plain language of the claims.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). Patent Owner states that it applies the level of skill set forth in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 35. At this stage, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the ’255 patent. D. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Patent Owner contends that “adapted to” in independent claims 1 and 20 means “‘designed or configured to’ and is not satisfied by mere hypothetical capability.” Prelim. Resp. 36; see Prelim. Resp. 36–41. We address Patent Owner’s arguments below with our discussion of Petitioner’s Ribartis-based arguments. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. 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)). E. Alleged Obviousness” slip op. at 8
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,676,255 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00034 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–20 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 14–16 are not shown unpatentable because the cited art does not teach logic configured to determine concurrent failure probability.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We decline to adopt Patent Owner’s implicit construction that would require “selecting an entity pair from” all of the entity pairs of “said plurality of transport entities.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing the claim language, the plain language of claim 1 does not require the selection to be from all of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. The plain language of claim 1 also does not preclude the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. Rather, dependent claim 9, through its dependence on claims 1 and 4, explicitly allows for the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities. Patent Owner’s arguments advocate for the importation of limitations from the ’821 Patent Specification into the claim––namely the disclosure that all entity pairs of transport entities examined in step 220 of Figure 2 are input to the entity pair selection step 230. See PO Sur-reply 4. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Accordingly, we construe “selecting an entity pair from said plurality of transport entities based at least upon said overall cost” according to its plain meaning, the scope of which includes selecting an entity pair from all or a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “working entity” and “protection entity” in order to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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))). Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in our analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record and after having considered Petitioner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as Patent Owner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard and Mr. Gomez’s testimony, we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doshi with Guichard’s teachings of reoptimization of a LSP path triggered by an network change. See Pet. 20–22, 40–45; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Doshi and Guichard both address the same technology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reoptimizing Doshi’s LSP pair selection because Guichard provides significant implementation details, including when to trigger reoptimization evaluations and how to ‘avoid network instabilities.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1006, 5). Petitioner asserts that a reasonable expectation of success is evidenced by other skilled artisans that reoptimized similar systems. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1009, 136; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1023, 34; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 27–33, claim 19; Ex. 1035 ¶ 24). In support, Petitioner contends that “the combination would be within a POSITA’s skillset since Doshi already sets forth the calculation and selection techniques that would be utilized during the reoptimization evaluation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “since Doshi is already ‘monitoring and updating . . . network topology’ . . . event-based reoptimization evaluation per Guichard, would be directly applicable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 270–281).” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,830,821 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00402 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 17–20 are unpatentable over the Doshi and Guichard grounds; claims 14–16 were not shown unpatentable over Doshi, Guichard, and Xu.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“require “selecting an entity pair from” all of the entity pairs of “said plurality of transport entities.” Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments addressing the claim language, the plain language of claim 1 does not require the selection to be from all of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. The plain language of claim 1 also does not preclude the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined. Rather, dependent claim 9, through its dependence on claims 1 and 4, explicitly allows for the selection to be from a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities. Patent Owner’s arguments advocate for the importation of limitations from the ’821 Patent Specification into the claim––namely the disclosure that all entity pairs of transport entities examined in step 220 of Figure 2 are input to the entity pair selection step 230. See PO Sur-reply 4. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Accordingly, we construe “selecting an entity pair from said plurality of transport entities based at least upon said overall cost” according to its plain meaning, the scope of which includes selecting an entity pair from all or a subset of the entity pairs of the plurality of transport entities for which an overall cost has been determined.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “working entity” and “protection entity” in order to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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))). Other Claim Terms and Phrases As demonstrated in our analysis below, we need not construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Patent Owner Response.” PO Resp. 25. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art. slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Based on the entire record and after having considered Petitioner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard, and Dr. Houh’s testimony (Ex. 1003) as well as Patent Owner’s citations to Doshi, Guichard and Mr. Gomez’s testimony, we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Doshi with Guichard’s teachings of reoptimization of a LSP path triggered by an network change. See Pet. 20–22, 40–45; KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Petitioner asserts that “[t]he results of the combination would have been predictable and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Doshi and Guichard both address the same technology.” Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reoptimizing Doshi’s LSP pair selection because Guichard provides significant implementation details, including when to trigger reoptimization evaluations and how to ‘avoid network instabilities.’” Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1006, 5). Petitioner asserts that a reasonable expectation of success is evidenced by other skilled artisans that reoptimized similar systems. See Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1009, 136; Ex. 1010, 1; Ex. 1023, 34; Ex. 1034 ¶¶ 27–33, claim 19; Ex. 1035 ¶ 24). In support, Petitioner contends that “the combination would be within a POSITA’s skillset since Doshi already sets forth the calculation and selection techniques that would be utilized during the reoptimization evaluation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). According to Petitioner, “since Doshi is already ‘monitoring and updating . . . network topology’ . . . event-based reoptimization evaluation per Guichard, would be directly applicable.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 270–281).” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,830,821 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,830,821 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00026 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–31 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Bruckman; the Board did not reach the additional grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’740 Patent Specification disavows “any configurations where the user port is fixedly assigned to a specific backplane trace” from the full scope of the claim. Patent Owner’s citations to disclosures in the ’740 Patent Specification do not disparage the prior art, but merely contrast the configurations of the user ports and backplane traces disclosed in the ’740 Patent to “some known network element configurations” and “some conventional network elements.” See Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4, 5:13–21. We find that the comparison of the disclosed configurations of user ports and backplane traces to that of the prior art in the ’740 Patent Specification does not constitute a clear disavowal of the first physical link fixedly assigned to the second physical link. See Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[C]omparing and contrasting the present technique to that of the prior art does not ‘rise to the level of a clear disavowal’ of claim scope.”). Accordingly, we decline to construe “selecting, in a single computation based on at least one of the frame attributes, a first physical link out of the first group and a second physical link out of the second group” as requiring “the first physical link is not fixedly assigned to the second words of the claim their ordinary and customary meanings.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not construe “interface module.” See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “(‘POSITA’) in April 2006 would have had a working knowledge of computer networking, including such commonly used technologies as Ethernet and the internet protocol / transmission control protocol (TCP/IP) suite.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7–9). Petitioner further asserts that “[a] POSITA would two years of professional experience in the field of communication networks, including link aggregation in communication networks.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7–9). “For purposes of this Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 21. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is supported by declaration testimony and is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’740 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 19
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“1 Juniper Networks, Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR20240-00034, which were granted. Accordingly, Juniper Networks, Inc has been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 1
Patent outcomesUS 7,545,740 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Corrigent CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00169 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); claims 11 and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Relying on Dr. Houh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the networking art that is pertinent to the ’431 patent, including network communications techniques and bandwidth management methodologies,” and “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications including the use of logical topologies and bandwidth management. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner’s articulation of that level of skill is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’431 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:5–6:14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We see no significant difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of in response to as “using” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction as “using information from.” Thus, it does not appear that the construction of in response to is genuinely in controversy. Thus, we need not construe the term for this decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (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.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we need to interpret any other claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Considering the evidence of record on both sides, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that Baker teaches a “mapping” as recited in limitation 1.4. Baker’s disclosure of a “mapping” is explicit. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 69, 83. And the evidence shows that this mapping occurs “in advance of a communication,” and may, for example, take place in the head node as part of the Administer Ring routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–56, 76. That intermediate rings are ultimately configured to simply forward traffic “according to preconfigured rules” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 87) rather than to perform more complicated routing has no pertinent bearing on the process corresponding to the recited “mapping” step, which occurs “in advance” of the communication and any such forwarding (id. ¶ 76).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“allocating bandwidth as part of its resources and that, in light of Wright, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this allocation for each of the links in of the physical topology (see Ex. 1006 ¶ 18 (“bandwidth allocation at each link”)) using information from both (1) the bandwidth requirements of Baker’s logical connections and (2) the mapping between Baker’s logical and physical topologies. As Petitioner persuasively argues, we find that Wright’s teaching of further details on ensuring the availability of bandwidth, in a similar context, would have been sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wright’s teachings into Baker’s method. We also determine that whether Wright, itself, teaches a mapping step is not the determining factor because Petitioner relies on Baker, not Wright, for teaching mapping limitation 1.4. Nevertheless, Wright does teach allocating bandwidth using the same information that would be available as a result of Baker’s mapping, including the logical (“restricted”) topology and the physical links associated with that topology. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that allocating bandwidth to the physical links (step 510 of Figure 5) requires knowing which physical links correspond to Wright’s restricted topology. See Pet. 36; Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–51. We also disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Baker’s method to apply Wright’s teachings on bandwidth allocation, such as how Baker’s head node N0 would have been modified. See PO Resp. 31–32. Based on the level of ordinary skill and the level of detail in Baker, Wright, and the ’431 patent, and crediting Dr. Houh’s testimony, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that such modification would have been within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46, 48). And we agree with Petitioner that modifying Baker with Wright’s teachings would have been “nothing more than the combination of known elements . . . according to known methods . . . to yield predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,330,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,330,431 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00315 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 on all petition grounds, granted joinder to IPR2024-00137, and authorized withdrawal of Samsung’s Sotera stipulation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“Carriers’ parallel district-court case. The arguments and facts are substantively the same as those presented in the T-Mobile IPR, except Petitioner here is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case. In the T-Mobile IPR, we found that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile 6 See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. Because Petitioner in the instant proceeding is not a defendant in the Carriers’ parallel district-court case, we find that factor 5 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution in the instant proceeding. Regarding the other factors, for the same reasons discussed in the decision to institute in the T-Mobile IPR, we find that factor 1 is neutral, factors 2 and 3 weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against exercising discretion to deny institution. T-Mobile IPR, Paper 15, 10–14. We turn to Patent Owner’s arguments based on the Petitioner’s parallel district-court case. Our analysis of factors 1 and 4 is the same as that presented in the T-Mobile IPR because no stay has been requested in Petitioner’s parallel district-court case and Petitioner has agreed to be bound by the same stipulation submitted in the T-Mobile IPR. Joinder Mot. 1. Based on the facts presented by the parties, including the May 5, 2025 trial date, we find that factors 2, 3, and 5 weigh marginally in favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. Taking “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11, 6), we conclude that the evidence of record and our analysis of factors 1–5 relating to both district-court cases favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review. Regarding factor 6, for the reasons discussed in our institution decision in the T-Mobile IPR, we determine, on this preliminary record, that the merits here are compelling. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“unpatentability as the ones on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 21–56, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 25–60. Indeed, Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a ‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in” the T-Mobile IPR and the “expert declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert declaration in” the T-Mobile IPR and is “signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner states that its arguments on the merits in its Preliminary Response “are likewise ‘copycat’ of the merits arguments Patent Owner presented in its preliminary response in IPR2024-00137.” Prelim. Resp. 1 n.1. We instituted inter partes review of claims 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, and 23 of the ’888 Patent on May 22, 2024, based on the petition filed in the T-Mobile IPR after consideration of all arguments and evidence presented by the parties including Patent Owner’s arguments in its Preliminary Response. T- Mobile IPR, Paper 15. For the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution in the T-Mobile IPR, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing at least one claim of the ’888 patent is unpatentable. See id. Accordingly, we find the Petition warrants institution of inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds raised.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after 7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g., Joinder Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the T-Mobile IPR. See Joinder Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will simplify briefing and discovery. See Joinder Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly, joinder to the T-Mobile IPR would further the goals of a just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of Petitioner’s challenge. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Therefore, for the reasons given, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR.” slip op. at 13
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,094,888 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cobblestone Wireless LLCInstitutedPTAB · Jun 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00317 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 23–27 on all petition grounds and granted Samsung’s motion to join the T-Mobile IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“B. Institution of Inter Partes Review The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as the grounds on which we instituted review in the T-Mobile IPR. Compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Indeed, Petitioner contends that “the grounds of challenge in this Petition are a ‘copycat’ of the Petition filed in T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00135” and the “expert declaration filed in this proceeding is substantively identical to the expert declaration in IPR2024- 00135 and signed by the same expert.” Id. at 1.” slip op. at 7
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“103(a) Chang III. ANALYSIS A. Discretionary Denial Argument Patent Owner asserts “[t]o the extent that the Board institutes review of the First Petition, institution of the Second Petition should be denied as an unnecessary parallel petition.” Prelim. Resp. 3. We denied institution in the first ranked proceeding. See Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Cobblestone Wireless LLC, IPR2024-00318, Paper 11 (PTAB June 21, 2024). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments and cited supporting evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden to show that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner to the T-Mobile IPR. Petitioner timely filed its Motion for Joinder within one month after institution of trial in the T-Mobile IPR, as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner challenges the same claims that are challenged in the T-Mobile IPR on the same grounds using the same prior art and evidence. See, e.g., Mot. 1, 6–7; compare Pet. 3, 12–39, with T-Mobile IPR, Paper 1, 6, 16–41. Petitioner states it will take an “understudy” role in the T-Mobile IPR and only assume a primary role should all Carriers cease participation in the T- Mobile IPR. See Mot. 6. Petitioner further asserts that joinder will have little to no impact on the trial schedule for the T-Mobile IPR and will simplify briefing and discovery. See Mot. 6, 9–11. Accordingly, joinder to the T-” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,554,196 - PTAB · Mar 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00037 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9, 12–24, and 27–31 under the stated grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Patent Owner did not file a Preliminary Response. For the same reasons set forth in our institution decision in the Cisco IPR, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable. We therefore institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“institution of the Cisco IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). As noted, the Petition in this case asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4–5. Petitioner also relies on the same prior art analysis and expert testimony submitted by the Cisco petitioner. See id. at 5. Indeed, the Petition is nearly identical to the petition filed by the Cisco petitioner. See id. Thus, this inter partes review does not present any ground or matter not already at issue in the Cisco IPR. Id. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “‘understudy’ role” and agrees that this role shall apply unless the Cisco petitioner ceases to participate in the instituted IPR. Id. at 6–7. Petitioner further represents that it will not advance any arguments separate from those advanced by the Cisco petitioner in the consolidated filings. Id. Because Petitioner expects to participate only in a limited capacity, Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the Cisco IPR. Id. at 5. Patent Owner did not file an Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Based on the above, we determine that joinder with the Cisco IPR is appropriate under the circumstances. Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 4
NonePatents in suitUS 10,652,111 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00026 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–31 on all petition grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First, the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a delegation of authority . . . ) determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise [her] discretion to decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and any preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The patentability challenges in the Cisco IPR met the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). IPR2023-00401, Paper 10, 30–31. The Petition here presents the same patentability challenges as those for which a trial was instituted in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4 (“[This] Petition is substantively identical to the Cisco IPR and relies on identical exhibits.”); compare Pet. 1–74, with IPR2023-00401, Paper 2, 9–79. According to Petitioner, the “[t]he same claims of the same patent are challenged under the same unpatentability grounds as the Cisco IPR.” Mot. 4. In the present proceeding, Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response to dispute the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges. For the reasons set forth in the Cisco IPR, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the We accordingly determine that the Petition warrants institution under § 314, and turn to Petitioner’s request for joinder.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b). Petitioner filed the Motion on October 10, 2023, within one month of institution of the Cisco IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Petitioner asserts that the Motion should be granted because the joinder “won’t impact the Cisco IPR trial schedule in any meaningful way.” Mot. 5. Petitioner also agrees to take an “understudy” role in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 5–7. Specifically, Petitioner agrees to the following: (1) Petitioner “won’t make any substantive filings, and . . . agrees that Cisco alone will be responsible for all substantive petitioner filings in the joined proceeding;” (2) “to be bound by all filings by Cisco in the joined proceeding, except for filings regarding termination and settlement;” (3) Petitioner “must obtain prior Board authorization to file any paper or to take any action on its own in the joined proceeding;” (4) Petitioner “shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not already instituted by the Board in the Cisco IPR, or introduce any argument or discovery not already introduced by Cisco;” (5) Petitioner “shall be bound by any agreement between Patent Owner and Cisco concerning discovery and depositions;” (6) Petitioner “will not cross-examine or defend any witness at deposition;” (7) “Cisco will be responsible for any oral hearing presentation, including the preparation of demonstrative exhibits”; and (8) “Should Cisco cease participation in the proceeding[, Petitioner] would assume a primary role, meaning it would take over the role previously filled by Cisco.” Mot. 6. As mentioned before, Patent Owner did not file an opposition to the Motion. the Cisco IPR which was instituted on identical grounds, we determine that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner as a party to the Cisco IPR.” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 7,545,740 - PTAB · Feb 27, 2024 · IPR2024-00034 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petition grounds and granted Juniper’s motion to join the Cisco IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“The patentability challenges in the Cisco IPR met the “reasonable likelihood” standard of § 314(a). IPR2023-00402, Paper 11, 30. The Petition here presents the same patentability challenges as those for which a trial was instituted in the Cisco IPR. See Mot. 4 (“[This] Petition is substantively identical to the Cisco IPR and relies on identical exhibits.”); compare Pet. 1–80, with IPR2023-00402, Paper 2, 9–85. According to Petitioner, the “[t]he same claims of the same patent are challenged under the same unpatentability grounds as the Cisco IPR.” Mot. 4. In the present proceeding, Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response to dispute the merits of Petitioner’s patentability challenges. For the reasons set forth in the Cisco IPR, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims of the ’821 Patent. See IPR2023-00402, Paper 11, 14–39. We accordingly determine that the Petition warrants institution under § 314, and turn to Petitioner’s request for joinder.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Because Petitioner will take an understudy role that will not impact the Cisco IPR which was instituted on identical grounds, we determine that it is appropriate under these circumstances to join Petitioner as a party to the Cisco IPR.” slip op. at 9
NonePatents in suitUS 8,830,821
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.