• Siemens Mobility, Inc. / Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. et al. v. Metrom Rail, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00468 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable; claims 17–20 are not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to prove the asserted grounds by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 37) (emphases added). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s approach expansively includes anyone working on collision avoidance and does not acknowledge that the railroad industry specifically is resistant to change and innovation. Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 40). Accordingly, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art also would be characterized as “reluctant to innovate, a characteristic of this industry.” Id. at 5.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

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

    “Id. (citing Ex. 2016, 1–6; Ex. 2019, 1–4; Ex. 1054, 125:20–141:7). Petitioner argues that “Dr. Cooklev’s analysis is legally insufficient because he assumed that any product that met a claim was in fact coextensive with it, regardless of whether it had additional features,” “boil[ing] coextensiveness down to infringement.” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1051, 117:5–10). Petitioner contends that Patent Owner’s only evidence that unclaimed features are irrelevant to AURA’s success is Dr. Cooklev’s conclusion, which is factually insufficient as it is based entirely on conversations with Messrs. Gunther and Marchi, without independent analysis. Id. (citing Ex. 2011 ¶ 41).” slip op. at 26

  • Strike new argumentDenied

    “Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike Exhibit 1060 and portions of Petitioner’s Reply is denied.” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 9,043,131 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,043,131
• Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenMixed

    “of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68

  Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,559
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00641 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that Hebinuma teaches the oval trenches recited in claim 6. See Ex. 1027, Fig. 9. In addition, we agree that Petitioner’s proposed combination would have been obvious because it amounts to no more than a simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e., Hebinuma’s elliptical trenches for Torii’s rectangular ones. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus, with the analysis outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See id. at 418. Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2022-00631 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “petition in IPR2022-00631 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). BMW of N. Am., LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd, IPR2022-00631 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 1, 2 (petition), 4 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00631 and granted BMW’s motion for joinder. Paper 28 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). Similarly, General Motors LLC (“GM”) filed a petition in IPR2022-00641 (challenging the same claims of the ’867 patent on the same grounds), and a motion for joinder (seeking to join this proceeding as a petitioner). General Motors, LLC v. Arigna Tech. Ltd., IPR2022-00641 (PTAB Mar. 8, 2022), Papers 2 (petition), 3 (motion for joinder). We granted institution in IPR2022-00641 and granted GM’s motion for joinder. Paper 29 (PTAB Sept. 1, 2022). VW and Patent Owner then reached a settlement and this proceeding was terminated only as to VW. Paper 30 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2022). Accordingly, we refer to BMW and GM, collectively, as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it mischaracterizes Petitioner’s reliance on Torii. Petitioner does not rely on a single structure as disclosing both the claimed source electrode and conductive portions. Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures.” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• BMW Of North America, LLC / General Motors LLC v. Arigna Technology Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 23, 2023 · IPR2021-01321 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4, 6, and 7 are unpatentable: claim 4 is anticipated by Torii, and claim 6 is obvious over Torii and Hebinuma; claims 1–3, 5, 8, and 9 were not proven unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “These formulations are similar. We adopt Petitioner’s description as it is consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and 8 US 6,413,822 B2, Jul. 2, 2002 (Ex. 1033, “Williams99”). supported by credible expert testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). However, our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION Petitioner and Patent Owner offer different constructions for a single claim term—“penetrating.” See PO Resp. 19; Pet. Reply 1. However, the parties’ differing constructions do not impact our unpatentability analysis. Therefore, we decline to construe this term. We find no claim terms require express construction to determine unpatentability. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Rather, as explained above, Petitioner relies on the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 as the claimed source electrode, and the bottom portions as the claimed conductive portions. That is, even if Patent Owner is correct that the claimed source electrode and conductive portions must be distinct structures, that does not undermine Torii’s disclosure because Petitioner relies on distinct portions of Torii’s larger, single-hashed element labeled electrode 13. Because Petitioner does not rely on the same structure, i.e., the entire electrode 13 of Torii, for each of two distinct claim elements, our conclusion does not conflict with the Federal Circuit’s holding in Becton. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254 (holding that a single hinge structure could not be both the claimed spring means and the claimed separate hinged arm); id. at 1255 (noting that “[i]f the hinged arm and the spring means are one and the same, then the hinged arm must be ‘connected to’ itself,” which is “a physical impossibility”) (emphasis added). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that this case is more analogous to Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 663 F.3d 1221, 1231–32 (Fed. Cir. 2011), where the court held the front half of a cutting box satisfied a “cutting box” limitation, and its rear half satisfied a separate “dust collection structure” limitation. See id.; Pet. Reply 3. Like Powell, which “divided the cutting box” into two portions that each met a single claim limitation, Petitioner argues that one portion of Torii’s electrode 13 (the top portion, colored red by Petitioner) discloses the source electrode, and the remaining portions of Torii’s electrode 13 (the bottom portions, colored pink by Petitioner) discloses the conductive portions. See Powell, 663 F.3d at 1231. In Powell, the claim required “[the] cutting box interior [to be] in fluid communication with [the] dust collection structure,” and the court found that this requirement did not require that the two elements “be wholly separate structures.” Id. at 1229, 1231–32. Similarly, we determine that the requirement that the source electrode and conductive portions are electrically connected does not require that these be wholly separate structures. For these reasons, we agree with Petitioner that together, the top portion of Torii’s electrode 13 discloses the source electrode and the bottom portions of Torii’s electrode 13 disclose the conductive portions recited in claim 4.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner raises several arguments in contesting Petitioner’s obviousness challenge, none of which we find persuasive. For example, we disagree with Patent Owner that Torii and Hebinuma are not analogous art because a skilled artisan “would not have looked to Hebinuma to improve on Torii.” PO Resp. 72–76. The ’867 patent, Torii, and Hebinuma are all in the same field of “power semiconductor device[s] having a trench gate structure.” Ex. 1001, 1:5–8; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 1–3; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 1–4. Thus, Torii and Hebinuma are analogous to the ’867 patent. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that one skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success because Hebinuma’s oval-shaped trenches were “substantially more challenging” than Torii’s “well-known and well-studied” rectangular-trench solution. PO Resp. 77 (citing Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 128–130). Instead, we agree with Petitioner that one skilled in the art could reasonably expect success because the change “requires only minor changes to the photolithography mask” (Pet. 72; see Ex. 1002 ¶ 364), and because both Torii and Hebinuma expressly teach different trench shapes (see Ex. 1030 ¶ 116 (teaching that “the corner portion of the aperture . . . may be rounded”); Ex. 1027 ¶ 49 (teaching that “the contact trench Tc can be formed under similar conditions . . . with the exception of changing the patterning shape”)).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 8,247,867 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,247,867
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2023 · IPR2020-00052 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Vehviläinen; the Board did not reach anticipation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. Netflix, 2022 WL 2298983 at *1. The Federal Circuit vacated our Decision as to claims 1 and 17–19 and remanded for further consideration of whether claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable in light of the court’s construction of a disputed limitation recited in claim 1. Id. at *7. The Federal Circuit affirmed our Decision as to claims 2 and 4, and thus, those claims are not before us on remand. Id. The parties proposed filing a joint brief, with six pages per side, limited to identifying the issues that remain on remand and identifying relevant portions of the existing record, without submitting any new evidence or arguments, and we authorized the joint brief. Paper 87; Ex. 1028. Accordingly, the parties filed a joint brief. Paper 88 (“Joint Brief”). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude, in view of the Federal Circuit’s claim construction and the complete record before us, that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1 and 17–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

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

    “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). “There are only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Neither of those exceptions apply here, and for the reasons below, we disagree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “selecting a filter to apply” excludes determining whether or not to apply a given filter. We begin with the claim language at issue. TQ Delta, LLC v. DISH Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). When considering the language of the claim overall, the usage of “selecting a filter” in the claims does not in any way indicate whether the filter has to be selected from among multiple filters. Claim 1 recites “selecting a filter to apply to determined level of detail.” Ex. 1001, 13:20–22 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that “the claim language confirms that ‘selecting a filter’ means choosing from a number of alternative filters, not merely deciding whether or not to apply a filter,” (PO Resp. 34), but we see nothing in the claim language that suggests such a requirement. Patent Owner also points us to claim 19, arguing that selecting is not merely deciding whether to apply a filter, “since that determination is already made in [c]laim 19 by virtue of the initial sub-step of ‘exceed[ing] the threshold.’” Id. Again, we see nothing in claim 19 that suggests the determination of the threshold being exceeded requires a specific manner of filter selection. Instead, similar to claim 1, claim 19 recites: “when the level of detail exceeds the threshold, selecting a filter to apply to predetermined pixels.” Ex. 1001, 16:8–9. Thus, we are not persuaded that the claim language necessarily requires selecting a filter from among multiple filters. slip op. at 14

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

    “because Vehviläinen performs additional analysis before selecting a moderate or high activity filter, it does not teach selecting from among multiple filters. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation, and even if we did, we are persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have easily modified Vehviläinen’s filter selection to use a single area, e.g., the smooth area of Figure 5A, and a decision branch based on the level of detail for that single area. Vehviläinen discloses that “increasing the amount of selection branches makes the system more adaptive to the nature of the blocking effect but also increases control logic.” Ex. 1004, 8:15–27. Vehviläinen states that “[a] good embodiment,” but of course, “the invention can be utilized with less than three branches.” Id. at 8:18–21. Dr. Bove testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to reduce complexity and the required control logic by using fewer branches, as taught by Vehviläinen, including for example just one branch, particularly for applications running on performance-constrained platforms such as low-end computer processors or mobile platforms, which often had constraints on thermal dissipation, power consumption, and cost.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 120 (citing Ex. 1004, 11:7–22). He further testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to determine the level of detail for just the ‘smooth’ area and then select the smooth filter, if the area is smooth, or the high-activity filter otherwise.” Id. Dr. Bove illustrates that modification with the following pseudocode: if ( IsSmooth (Figure_5A) == TRUE) { Select (SmoothFilter); } else { Select (HighActivityFilter); } Id. He further testifies that such a modification would have been obvious and well within [a person of ordinary skill in the art’s] level of skill, and [such a person] would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that [the] modification involves a simple reordering of elements taught by Vehviläinen, the fact that Vehviläinen expressly teaches the have had with these basic filtering and thresholding techniques. Id. On this aspect, we credit Dr. Bove’s testimony because it is based on the express teachings of Vehviläinen and addresses a straightforward modification in view of those teachings.” slip op. at 33

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

    “a) Patent Owner Has Not Established that It is Entitled to a Presumption of Nexus We determine that Patent Owner has not demonstrated a nexus between the evidence presented and claims 1 and 17–19. Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence are directed broadly to the DivX6 codec’s deblocking scheme and not specifically to the deblocking aspects covered by the challenged claims. We agree with Petitioner that the claimed features constitute only a small part of the commercial product and the two are far from being coextensive. See Pet. Reply 31 (citing Ex. 1017, 133:10–24; Ex. 1018, 34:4–35:1). As Dr. Bajaj explained, the “DivX [codec] included a lot of things” other than deblocking, and the DivX documentation details “only a fraction of the things that were there in the codec.” Ex. 1017, 133:10–24.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,139,651 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,139,651
• Twitter, Inc. / Google LLC v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00483 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 and 26–37 are unpatentable, principally under the Guyot-based grounds; claim 25 was not shown unpatentable under Guyot or Robinson.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “review claims 1−37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 B2 (“the ’440 patent”) owned by B.E. Technology, L.L.C. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final Written Decision is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 47.73. For the reasons discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1−24 and 26−27of the ’440 patent are unpatentable. And Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 25 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in network-based technologies.” 482 Pet. 10 (citing Houh Decl. ¶¶ 57−61). Patent Owner “only disagrees with Petitioner’s and Dr. Houh’s assessment of the applicable level of skill in the art with respect to its failure to acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” PO Resp. 9. We agree with Petitioner’s proffered level or ordinary skill in the art and with Patent Owner’s clarification because the prior art of record is in the field of network-based targeted advertising, and knowledge of such a field would assist a person of ordinary skill in the art in appreciating the tools necessary to implement it. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art with the caveat proposed by Patent Owner that the level of skill includes working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” slip op. at 33

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “identifier” and Subscriber Data was not presented in the Petition and to the extent it was vaguely alluded to, the extent of that combination was not explained. The claim requires determining the “unique identifier” associated with the computer, which Guyot may be able to perform with “unique proprietary identifier.” But the claim also requires that “the identifier”—not some other piece of information separate and distinct from that identifier— identify information sent from the computer to the one or more servers. The Petition, for the “determining a unique identifier” limitation (limitation 1.3), alludes to Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” identifying the computer, and without argument or explanation concludes that it is “used again by the system in selecting an appropriate advertisement to be displayed on the specific computer associated with the user of that computer, as described further in limitation [1.4].” Pet. 19. The supporting testimony from Dr. Houh is verbatim what is asserted in the Petition and offers no explanation for such a conclusion and no support in Guyot for those assertions. Accordingly, we give Dr. Houh’s testimony in this regard no weight. Reviewing the further explanations for “limitation [1.4],” Petitioner again presents the argument that Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” is assigned and thus identifies the computer itself. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1041, 3:20−21). But in discussing advertisement selection and the information on which that selection is based, Petitioner relies on the Subscriber Data and Subscriber Statistics without explaining how or why Guyot’s unique” slip op. at 48

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “presented by Petitioner concerning the terms “computer’ and “computer user.” Indeed, there is no dispute between the parties that the claim may encompass situations in which a single computer is operated by a single computer user, though the claim could also encompass multiple computers and multiple users. See Reply 1; Sur-reply 1; see also KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“This court has repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’”). Accordingly, because the parties’ disputes center around other claim terms, we are not persuaded that the scope of “computer” and “computer user” needs further clarification.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,769,440 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,769,440
• Twitter, Inc. / Google LLC v. B.E. Technology, L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2022 · IPR2021-00482 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 and 26–37 are unpatentable; claim 25 is not shown unpatentable because the challenged grounds do not establish real-time reactive targeting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “identifier” and Subscriber Data was not presented in the Petition and to the extent it was vaguely alluded to, the extent of that combination was not explained. The claim requires determining the “unique identifier” associated with the computer, which Guyot may be able to perform with “unique proprietary identifier.” But the claim also requires that “the identifier”—not some other piece of information separate and distinct from that identifier— identify information sent from the computer to the one or more servers. The Petition, for the “determining a unique identifier” limitation (limitation 1.3), alludes to Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” identifying the computer, and without argument or explanation concludes that it is “used again by the system in selecting an appropriate advertisement to be displayed on the specific computer associated with the user of that computer, as described further in limitation [1.4].” Pet. 19. The supporting testimony from Dr. Houh is verbatim what is asserted in the Petition and offers no explanation for such a conclusion and no support in Guyot for those assertions. Accordingly, we give Dr. Houh’s testimony in this regard no weight. Reviewing the further explanations for “limitation [1.4],” Petitioner again presents the argument that Guyot’s “unique proprietary identifier” is assigned and thus identifies the computer itself. Id. at 21 (citing Ex. 1041, 3:20−21). But in discussing advertisement selection and the information on which that selection is based, Petitioner relies on the Subscriber Data and Subscriber Statistics without explaining how or why Guyot’s unique” slip op. at 48

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in network-based technologies.” 482 Pet. 10 (citing Houh Decl. ¶¶ 57−61). Patent Owner “only disagrees with Petitioner’s and Dr. Houh’s assessment of the applicable level of skill in the art with respect to its failure to acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” PO Resp. 9. We agree with Petitioner’s proffered level or ordinary skill in the art and with Patent Owner’s clarification because the prior art of record is in the field of network-based targeted advertising, and knowledge of such a field would assist a person of ordinary skill in the art in appreciating the tools necessary to implement it. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (stating that the absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise to reversible error where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art with the caveat proposed by Patent Owner that the level of skill includes working knowledge of network-based targeted advertising.” slip op. at 33

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “1. “a computer user” and “a computer” Claim 1 recites “permitting a computer user to access one or more” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “computer associated with the computer user” Having determined that the claim may encompass a single computer” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 8,769,440 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,769,440
• Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC v. Intellectual Pixels LimitedSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2022 · IPR2020-01248 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Schmidt and Keslin; claim 4 was not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least (1) an undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent subject, together with two years of post-graduate experience in computer graphics; or (2) a master’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent subject, together with one year of postgraduate experience in computer graphics.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–27). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner but adds that “the experience in computer graphics would include experience with multimedia systems, particularly the delivery of video display information across a network.” PO Resp. 10–11 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 26). We determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is consistent with the ’093 patent and the asserted prior art, and also agree with Patent Owner’s assertion regarding the relevant experience. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Accordingly, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or an equivalent subject, together with two years of post-graduate experience in computer graphics; or (2) a master’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or equivalent subject, together with one year of postgraduate experience in computer” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “1. 3-dimensional graphics (and related terms) The parties inform us of certain terms that were construed in pending district court litigation. See Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1013, 21); PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1013, 12–13). We determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any of these terms for purposes of our Decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “unsupported in view of the plain language of claim 1 and the disclosure of the ’093 patent. Inst. Dec. 20–21. We noted that the claim recites “an application, running on a server, which generates 3-dimensional graphics accordingly.” Id. at 20. Rather than Patent Owner’s narrow reading of this limitation, requiring the server to generate 3-dimensional graphics independently from the claimed application, we determined that a more reasonable construction of this limitation is that the server in its entirety, including the application running on the server, generates the 3-dimensional graphics. Id. In other words, the phrase “which generates 3-dimensional graphics accordingly” cannot be read separately from the first two phrases of the limitation in the manner that Patent Owner proposes. Id. Patent Owner argues that our preliminary construction was improper because it “read[s] out the term ‘application’ by lumping together the ‘application’ and the ‘server,’” “effectively re-writ[ing] the limitation ‘sending user input control signals to an application, running on a server, which generates 3-dimensional graphics accordingly . . . .’ as ‘sending user input control signals to a server, which generates 3-dimensional graphics accordingly . . . .’” PO Resp. 54; see also PO Sur-reply 20. We disagree. Claim 1 plainly requires “sending user input control signals to an language, however, does not clearly distinguish between the two components for the purposes of generating the 3-dimensional graphics, and we therefore, gave the limitation its more reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, i.e., not limiting the claim to either the application or the server alone as generating the 3-dimensional graphics.7” slip op. at 20

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “statements about “removing all state and computation from the desktop” and characterization of the SLIM client was a “dumb frame buffer” client suggest that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found implementing decompression on the SLIM client to be extremely computationally burdensome. Dr. Fuchs testifies that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood “removing all state and computation from the desktop” to mean there can be no decompression on the client, but instead that Schmidt was “referring to the use of the server for application-level state and computation, allowing the user to move from one client to another without loss of application state.” Ex. 1035 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1004, 33). Dr. Fuchs quotes Schmidt stating that the servers maintain the true state at all times. Thus, the user is isolated from desktop failures and may move freely between terminals. In our implementation, users can simply present a smart identification card at any desktop, and the screen is returned to the exact state at which it was left. Ex. 1004, 33. Dr. Fuchs further testifies a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Schmidt’s statements about removing state to mean that the client cannot perform any processing whatsoever because the client in Schmidt does perform processing, such as CSCS commands. the client for processing the SLIM commands), 33 (Figure 1 showing the client generates “[m]ouse/keyboard events & other input”), 35 (the “SLIM consoles” include a “100MHz microSPARC-IIep processor”)). We credit Dr. Fuchs’s testimony because it is consistent with our findings of Schmidt’s teachings. Aside from the CSCS command, Schmidt discloses other computational tasks that the SLIM client could handle. For example, Schmidt explains, in comparing its protocol to the X protocol, that if video is scaled to a higher resolution, the X server must perform the operation prior to sending the image to the X client, whereas the Sun Ray 1 console, i.e., Schmidt’s SLIM client, “can do it locally at substantial savings in bandwidth.” Ex. 1004, 45; see also id. at 35 (listing the hardware components of the Sun Ray 1 SLIM client). The record therefore fails to support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the SLIM client to be as computationally underpowered as Patent Owner makes it out to be.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,667,093 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,667,093
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01038 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–40 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 31, 34, and 36 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art To determine the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan, various factors” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “claim terms for construction at that stage of the proceeding, and we did not construe any claim terms expressly as none of the terms were in dispute. Inst. Dec. 22. In the briefing following institution, Patent Owner proposed a construction for the term “inventory,” see, e.g., PO Resp. 21–28, and it became clear that the parties dispute the meaning of the term. Accordingly, we address the parties’ proposed constructions for “inventory” and the arguments they present for those constructions.” slip op. at 13

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

    “As set forth above, we resolved those disputed issues in favor of Petitioner. For the portions of the preamble and limitations of claim 35 that are not recited in claim 30, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 35 and are persuaded that Field teaches or suggests the preamble and claim limitations. Pet. 25–28 (and the exhibits cited therein). Thus, we find that Field teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 35. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has proven that claim 35 would have been obvious over Field.” slip op. at 55

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

    “metadata into its signature generating algorithm to create a more robust signature. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such an augmented signature generating algorithm in Field’s environment. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Field’s cryptographic signature generating algorithm so it would compute a file’s signature using a file’s metadata. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Accordingly, Field and Anderson disclose that “the cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043

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.