- PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2023-00255 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“(1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). In applying this framework, we consider the Becton, Dickinson3 factors that address discretion to deny when a petition presents the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously presented to the Office, including: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; 3 Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential as to § III.C.5, first paragraph) (“Becton, Dickinson”). during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments. Becton, Dickinson, Paper 8 at 17–18. Factors (a), (b), and (d), relate to whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and factors (c), (e), and (f) relate to whether the petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the claims. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9–11. Only if the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office do we then consider whether the petitioner has demonstrated a material error by the Office. Id.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2021). For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner establishes a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’287 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, and 8–23 of the ’287 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as mechanical engineering, physics, product design, or a related field” and “2–4 years of experience in working with electronic displays and have an understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). In the alternative, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have had 5–7 years of experience in the field working with electronic displays and have a similar understanding of product design issues and failure modes associated with electronic displays.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 37). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not propose a different level of skill in the art, or address Petitioner’s proposed definition. For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe each claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,629,287 - PTAB · Jun 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00221 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 based on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims would be shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not in its Preliminary Response stated its assertion on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner also has not disputed Petitioner’s assertion. At this preliminary stage and on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation, both alternatives, as the level of ordinary skill in the art. They appear consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“However, because Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage that what Petitioner, in its substantive analysis, has identified as a closed loop in Karppanen and Yare is a closed loop as recited in the challenged claims, we need not construe “closed loop” for purposes of this Decision. Neither party proposed an express construction for any other term. We find that no express claim construction of any claim term is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. C.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner explains that “[one of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that the problem of reflectance at the boundaries may exist in Karppanen’s system as well, due to the ducting 66, i.e., the air gap between the front plate 46 and the display element 26.” Id. at 59 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 132). Petitioner further explains that the benefits to be achieved by making the modification to include a polarizer is to minimize reflectance at the gap and also to reduce the need for any anti-reflective coating. Id. at 62. Petitioner presents another motivation for one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Karppanen as discussed above in light of Larson. It is based on Larson’s description that auxiliary polarizer 20 is an absorbing polarizer and that the auxiliary polarizer minimizes attenuation of light ¶ 133). Petitioner asserts that “[one with ordinary skill in the art] would have also recognized that an absorbing polarizer can absorb at least some polarizations of the ambient light, such as sunlight, which can help improve the contrast and reduce the heating of the display caused by the sunlight.” Id. at 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136). Petitioner further explains that one with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the proposed combination as use of known techniques (anti-reflective materials and/or polarizer) to improve a similar apparatus in the same way to yield predictable results, and would have expected the combination to succeed. Id. at 62–63 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–138). With respect to the foregoing, Patent Owner does not present counter-” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To the extent there is any praise in the two emails (Exhibits 2001 and 2003), no specific product has been identified and Patent Owner has not shown that any of its products include all the features of any challenged claim. Nor does either email specifically identify a technical feature that is the subject of any praise or recognition. Although the emails do express an interest in outdoor displays, that general category of product, i.e., outdoor, does not identify any specific technical feature which has impressed Samsung SDS America. Further, none of the challenged claims has an “outdoor” requirement and each challenged claim includes additional features not referred to in either the Exhibit 2001 email or the Exhibit 2003 email. Thus, no claim has been shown by Patent Owner as coextensive with any of its products, even assuming that a specific product was praised by Samsung SDS America through the two emails. Accordingly, Patent Owner has not shown sufficient nexus between Exhibits 2001–2003 and any challenged claim. Patent Owner also asserts that Petitioner should have first addressed the Exhibit 2001 email, the Exhibit 2003 email, and Exhibit 2002, as objective evidence of nonobvious 11 Patent Owner refers to the Exhibit 2003 email as including language referring to “discussion relative to all weather, outdoor, daylight viewable LCD products” (Prelim. Resp. 16), but we see no such language in the email. discussed above on a lack of sufficient showing of nexus, Exhibits 2001– 2003 are too general and vague to impose on Petitioner an obligation to address them in the Petition, in the first instance, as objective evidence of nonobviousness. Thus, based on the record presented, we decline to impose such an obligation on Petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is very weak. F.” slip op. at 71
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,013,142 - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00072 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“words” and because “the numerous (8) independent claims recite two very different interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules.” Id. Petitioner represents that The current Petition challenges independent claims 1, 2, 23, 24, and 30 in addition to dependent claims 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 14-19, 25-26, and 32—all of which recite a wire bond interconnection technique. The first Petition (IPR 2023-00071) seeks cancellation of independent claims 3, 27, and 31 in addition to dependent claims 4-5, 8, 11, 20-22, 28, 29, and 33—all of which recite using a combination of flip-chip and wire bond interconnection techniques for stacked multichip modules. Id. at 2–3. Petitioner further states that “each claim is challenged only once.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions that two petitions are necessary. See generally Prelim. Resp. On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)2 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Elenius, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical, mechanical or materials engineering and two to three years of experience in the design or development of semiconductor manufacturing, or the equivalent.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 32. Mr. Elenius further states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’806 patent would understand the claim term “electrode section” recited in the challenged claims to mean “electrical terminals, usually called bond pads, that are part of the substrate’s wiring layer.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 103–107). At this time, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction of “electrode section.” See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we need not construe the term “electrode section” because the parties do not identify any material issue that would turn on the construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Patent Owner contends that the term “adhesion layer” recited in the challenged independent claims should be construed to mean “a pre-formed layer that is adhered.” Prelim. Resp. 13–15. Patent Owner argues that Ball, Fogal, and Mostafazadeh do not teach “adhesion layer” under Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the term. See, e.g., id. at 16–24. Although Patent Owner’s argument raises an issue of claim construction, we need not expressly construe “adhesion layer” for purposes of this Decision because, as discussed in Section III.D.5 below, Petitioner shows sufficiently that the asserted combination of Ball, Fogal, Mostafazadeh, and the knowledge of a skilled artisan teaches or suggests “adhesion layer” even under Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham - PTAB · May 15, 2023 · IPR2023-00071 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 3–5, 8, 11, 20–22, 27, 28, 31, and 33 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“On the present record, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution of either petition on the basis of Petitioner filing two petitions to address the large number of claims included in the ’806 patent. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 59–60 (Nov. 2019)3 (in determining whether multiple petitions are necessary, the Board may consider petitioner’s explanations regarding “the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).”).” slip op. at 13
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), institution of an inter partes review is authorized 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.” After considering the information presented in the Petition, Preliminary Response, Reply, and Sur-reply, we determine that the information presented establishes that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’806 patent, based on all grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Although the proposals for the level of skill in the art by the parties’ declarants have differences in wording, we do not find the proposals to be materially different. For purposes of this Decision, we find no meaningful differences between the parties’ respective definitions that would materially alter the outcome of this Decision. Thus, although we do not find the parties’ proposals for the level of skill in the art to be materially different, for purposes of this Decision, based on our review of the ’806 patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’806 patent, and cited prior art, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Considering the claim language of claim 3 as a whole, see Hockerson- Halberstadt, Inc. v. Converse Inc., 183 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Proper claim construction . . . demands interpretation of the entire claim in context, not a single element in isolation.”), we agree with Petitioner that claim 3 does not recite when or how the “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Patent Owner appears to argue that the “first semiconductor chip” with “an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have been created “in advance,” e.g., by a wafer-level fabrication process, before the chip is mounted in the recited semiconductor device. Patent Owner argues that the patentee recognized that applying a paste or thermo-compression sheet on individual chips during packaging (i.e., mounting of the chips during packaging) caused the “overflow” and “gap” problems. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:16–24, 2:44–46). According to Patent Owner, “the patentee further recognized that merely switching to a pre-formed solid sheet alone would not solve the problem” because using a thermo-compression sheet on an individual chip for mounting during packaging “results in the same problem as using an adhesive due to the inability to place the chip accurately on the thermo-compression sheet.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:49–56). Thus, Patent Owner argues the ’806 patent proposes a two-fold solution: “Use a preformed solid sheet and attach that sheet to the back surface of the wafer first” during the wafer fabrication process “before cutting and placing the chip” in a multichip package. Id. at 3 (underlined emphases added). Patent Owner asserts, therefore, “a first semiconductor chip having . . . an adhesion layer adhered to its back surface,” as recited in claim 3, must have a pre-formed adhesion layer adhered to its back surface “in advance” before mounting in a multichip package, such as a solid thermo-compression sheet applied to the backside of a wafer during wafer-level fabrication processing before the chips are produced by dicing. Prelim. Resp. 13–14; Sur-reply 2–3. We note, however, that claim 3 does not recite a “wafer,” placing “an adhesion layer on a back surface of a wafer,” or producing semiconductor chips by dicing or cutting the wafer. See Ex. 1001, 14:14–32. Nor does the claim recite any limitation indicating when or how an “adhesion layer” is “adhered to [the first semiconductor chip’s] back surface.” Thus, at least based on the claim language, claim 3 does not require the recited semiconductor chips with an adhesion layer to have been produced “in advance” before being used for mounting in the recited semiconductor device. Nonetheless, for purposes of this Decision, we need not and do not” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00455 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 were not shown unpatentable over Chardon and HDMI 1.3a because the combination does not disclose data that itself identifies a controllable function.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As Patent Owner observes, the two proposals differ “in terms of the level of experience specifically with home theater systems.” Id. at 10. Because all of the challenged claims make specific reference to a “home theater device,” Petitioner’s proposal is reasonable on the current record, and is additionally supported by the testimony of Dr. Russ. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 15– 19. Patent Owner notes that its expert, Dr. Turnbull, agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed articulation, but that Dr. Turnbull’s “conclusions resulting from his analysis did not change when reviewing the cited references from the perspective of the level of ordinary skill in the art as proposed by the Petition.” PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2003, 31–41). We adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision. We note, however, that we would reach the same ultimate conclusion were we to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“phrase creates a degree of ambiguity, we are mindful that “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms” and that “the context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In this instance, the related phrasing that appears in the “automatically adding” and “causing” limitations of issued independent claim 1 is illuminating. Both of those limitations refer to “the controllable function of the controllable appliance that was identified by the data received from the controllable appliance.” Ex. 1001, 17:11–14, 17:21–24 (emphasis added). There is no question that the only antecedent for “the data” in these limitations is the “data that functions to identify a controllable function of the controllable appliance” recited in the “receiving” limitation. See id. at 17:8–9. And there is no apparent room in the language “that was identified by the data” for the introduction or consideration of such “other information” that Petitioner would like to use “in connection with” the recited “data” to identify the controllable function. See Reply 2.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner reasons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined such teachings from HDMI 1.3a with Chardon’s system because HDMI 1.3a “is a technical guide for the interoperability of the HDMI standard and how HDMI enabled devices operate,” and that “Chardon relies on HDMI capabilities to facilitate communication and monitoring-device state changes in its system.” Pet. 30–31 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:18–21; Ex. 1010, 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 130–131). According to Petitioner, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore turned to at least one of the versions of the HDMI Specification to fill in any details in Chardon with respect to how HDMI-capable devices, such as those of Chardon and the ’486 patent operate, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Id. at 31. Petitioner supports this reasoning with testimony by Dr. Russ that it is a “well-known industry practice” to rely on HDMI 1.3a as “specification of an industry standard” when “designing and building devices that implement the HDMI standard, incorporating all of the capabilities it offers.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 133. Patent Owner disputes the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing. In” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The difficulty with Petitioner’s and Dr. Russ’s position is that it is inconsistent with our adopted claim construction that the data itself identify a controllable function of the controllable appliance from which the data is received. See supra § II.C. As Patent Owner asserts, HDMI 1.3a “does not contemplate the exchange of any information that itself functions to identify a controllable function of a playback device.” PO Resp. 24 (emphasis added). All that the “Deck Status” message indicates in the example of Figure 17 is that the current status of the playback device is “Stop.” We also are not persuaded by Petitioner’s and Dr. Russ’s argument that HDMI 1.3a’s Tables 13 and 26 disclose that “Deck Info” information is returned with the “Deck Status” message, and that such “a deck status message includ[es] the features that the device can provide (e.g., play, pause, stop, etc.).” Pet. 41; Ex. 1003 ¶ 117. Reliance on such “Deck Info” information is problematic at least because it is “other information” that would be used in combination with the “Deck Status” to determine controllable functions of the controllable device, which is precluded by our adopted claim construction.” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 10,325,486 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,325,486 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. K.Mizra LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 24, 2021 · IPR2021-00593 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 because Cisco showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over Gleichauf, Ovadia, and Lewis.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“under NHK have sought to balance considerations such as system efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.” Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5 (collecting cases). Fintiv sets forth six non-exclusive factors for determining “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. at 6. These factors consider: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 5–6.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent training, and approximately two years of professional experience in the field of network communications, and more specifically, network security.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). Petitioner asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 18). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, although Patent Owner states that it “reserves the right to dispute Petitioner’s definition if an IPR is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Based on the current record, we find Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Therefore, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; Prelim. Resp. 17) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term, at least for purposes of deciding whether to institute a review. See generally Pet.; Prelim. Resp. Based on the current record, for purposes of this Decision, we determine no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Based on the record presented, we determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner has shown sufficiently how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Gleichauf with Ovadia to obtain the subject matter recited in limitations [1.2] and [1.4]. We also determine, for purposes of this Decision, Petitioner sufficiently articulates a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Ovadia with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 50
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,234,705 - Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 6, 2020 · IPR2020-00203 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1, 6, and 7, exercising § 314(a) discretion because Fintiv factors favored denial amid overlapping, advanced district court litigation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “[I]n evaluating the factors, the Board takes a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“concerns and the possibility of conflicting decisions. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Therefore, “if the petition includes the same or substantially the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as presented in the parallel proceeding, this fact has favored denial.” Id. In this case, although the obviousness ground asserted here is not identical to either ground in Petitioner’s final invalidity contentions, both of the references relied on in the Petition are asserted in the underlying litigation. As illustrated by Patent Owner’s comparison of citations in the Petition with those in Petitioner’s preliminary invalidity contentions in district court, substantial overlap exists between the disclosures of Waldroup and Nakayama relied on in the two proceedings. See Prelim. Resp. 8–9 (comparing Pet. 25–58 with Ex. 2004, 1–39). Thus, arguments and evidence regarding the teachings of Waldroup and Nakayama in the Petition are substantially the same as those in the underlying litigation. Although there may be some differences in the reasoning presented in the various obviousness grounds for combining the prior art teachings, we nevertheless find the assertion of Waldroup and Nakayama in both proceedings may result in duplication of work and create the potential for inconsistent decisions.” slip op. at 14
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 6,408,193 - ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 16, 2020 · IPR2019-01608 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 10 was unpatentable over any of the three asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“IV. CONCLUSION We have reviewed the Petition and Preliminary Response and have considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner. We find, on this record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing claim 10 of the ’532 patent is unpatentable. V. ORDER Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“But Petitioner contends that the claimed automatic creation is consistent with the process that the ’532 Patent describes as “manually” creating a macro—the programming by a user of a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button as shown in Figures 22a–22g and related disclosure. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1001, 24:7–47, Figs. 22a–22g; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Patent Owner argues that a proper understanding of the claim term should not encompass manually created macros, which in the ’532 Patent are distinct from “automatically or semi-automatically” created macros. See Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1001 23:67–24:10; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 93–103). We agree with Patent Owner. The Specification describes “two types of macros”—one “system generated” (automatically or semi-automatically) and one “user generated” such as a macro created when “the user . . . enter[s] a sequence of keystrokes to be stored as a macro.” Ex. 1001, 23:66– 24:10, 24:25–29, 19:67–20:19. Petitioner does not show support for a construction that would encompass the manually-created macros that are specifically described as distinct from the “automatically or semi-automatically” created macros. For these reasons we decline to adopt either proposed construction. Instead we determine that a macro generated when a user “manually program[s] a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button such that that sequence can be repeated by a press of the single button” (Ex. 1001, 24:7–10) is not encompassed by the claim limitation. Beyond this, we do not deem it necessary to adopt a specific construction to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs, 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner reviews and advocates for adoption of the District Court’s determinations and reasoning. Prelim. Resp. 21–22. The District Court’s construction was based on its determination that, as this term relates to “the automatically created sequence of instructions” (emphasis added), the method step of limitation [10.3] must temporally follow the step of limitation [10.2], in which a program is used “to automatically create the sequence of instructions.” Ex. 1012, 46–47 (“Claim 10 . . . requires creating a sequence of instructions first and executing that automatically created sequence of instructions second.”). Thus, the District Court determined that “these claim limitations support that a user first interacts with an interface to create a sequence of instructions, and then separately executes those ‘automatically created’ instructions by pressing a particular button on the controlling device.” Id. at 47. Petitioner’s arguments address what the impact of adopting the proposed construction would be, but Petitioner does not propose an alternate construction. Pet. Reply passim. We agree with the District Court’s determination that the step of “causing the automatically created sequence of instructions to be executed …” ([10.3]) must occur after the creation in the “using a program to automatically create the sequence of instructions . . .” limitation ([10.2]), and the balance of the District Court’s reasoning. We construe “selection of a user input element” as “selection of a user input element separate from the one or more user interactions involved in creating the sequence of instructions.”” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“motivated to combine Humpleman and Walkenbach, but does not address Petitioner’s discussion of the motivation. Prelim. Resp. 41–42; see Pet. 29– 30. More persuasively, Patent Owner argues that “Humpleman describes the exact type of manual entry of steps by a user successfully distinguished from the prior art during prosecution.” Prelim. Resp. 42–43; see id. at 36. We agree. Humpleman teaches that the player piano macro “save[s] the particular steps taken by a user while interacting with the device’s HTML pages” and “[w]hen the player piano macro executes, it performs the particular sequence of instructions as if the user was accessing the respective home device HTML page(s) and executing the sequence of steps directly.” Ex. 1003, 30:26–33. We determine that a macro generated when a user “manually program[s] a sequence of actions to be assigned to a single button such that that sequence can be repeated by a press of the single button” is not encompassed by the proper construction of limitation [10.2]. See supra § III.C.a. Even if, as Petitioner argues, a combination of Humpleman and Walkenbach would teach or suggest that the particular steps taken by the user to be repeated later would be stored in the form of computer code, this distinction does not change the fact that Petitioner relies upon Humpleman’s teachings regarding a user manually programming a sequence of actions which is repeated when the macro is selected, which is excluded by our construction from teaching or suggesting limitation [10.2]. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing claim 10 is unpatentable over the combination of Humpleman and Walkenbach.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,895,532 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2020 · IPR2018-01144 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Bednar and Gunther; claim 3 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering (or an equivalent subject), together with three years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering (or equivalent subject) together with two years of post-graduate experience designing power management circuits.” Inst. Dec. 8; see Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 26–27).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“construction is erroneous. Accordingly, because the ’922 patent defines “power island,” we maintain and reaffirm that “power island” means a “group of components with similar power requirements.”” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“not to expressly construe “conversion controller” was erroneous or that an express construction is required to resolve any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that because the construction of “conversion controller” does not resolve a controversy in the matter before us, we decline to construe it expressly.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “memory device,” specifically whether it encompasses a latch. Neither party argues that “memory device” is expressly defined in the ’922 patent. Accordingly, the plain and ordinary meaning of the term controls. And, the standard under which we construe the term is the broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,004,922 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,004,922 - Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm IncorporatedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2020 · IPR2018-01252 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Apple did not prove claims 1–6 and 8–20 unpatentable as obvious over Jin and Elias because it failed to show Jin teaches moving a card with directional contact.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“art include (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696–697 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. Moreover, these factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“[W]e need only construe those claim limitations ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 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)). Because the parties did not request the construction of any limitation and no express constructions are necessary to resolve a controversy, we do not construe any of the limitations. slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“prima facie case of unpatentability.” Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018), 14, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 2018_Revised_Trial_Practice_Guide.pdf. As the Federal Circuit has explained, [i]t is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify “with particularity” the “evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). “All arguments for the relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding opposition or patent owner response.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Once the Board identifies new issues presented for the first time in reply, neither this court nor the Board must parse the reply brief to determine which, if any, parts of that brief are responsive and which are improper. As the Board noted, “it will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012). Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting same). Based on that standard, the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB properly refused to consider a new theory raised for the first time in a reply brief:” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“preliminary,” “based on the evidentiary record developed thus far,” and that “[o]ur final decision will be based on the record as fully developed during trial.” Id. at 32. We further advised the parties that we were not “determin[ing] whether an individual asserted fact is indisputable or whether a preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner.” Id. at 31. Having conducted the trial, for the reasons discussed below, our preliminary finding is not supported by the entirety of the record. Instead, we agree with Patent Owner that Jin does not teach or suggest “directional contact of moving the [selected] card along . . . the touch-sensitive display screen” and agree that the combination of Jin and Elias does not teach or suggest “dismissing the selected first card or second card from the touch-sensitive display screen in the second direction so that the corresponding first application or second application is closed” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Jin teaches or suggests that the processor responds to directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen. Jin’s Figures 9C shows a finger moving along the screen—directional contact. Ex. 1005, Fig. 9C. However, Jin’s Figure 9C does not illustrate the card moving along with the finger. Id. Rather, Jin’s Figure 9E simply shows the cards in a new position without describing what happened on the display while the location of the cards were changed. See id. at Fig. 9E. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Jin teaches directional contact moving the selected card in the second direction on the display screen.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,683,362 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,683,362
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.