• Interactive Communications International, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under either obviousness ground because Szrek did not disclose a pre-printed lottery ticket without lottery numbers associated at customer purchase.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “real party in interest. Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 32–34. In the Institution Decision, we stated: To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party of interest to Petitioner, even though no time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) has been asserted, Patent Owner may raise the issue of real party in interest again in its Patent Owner Response and the parties may brief and argue the issue during trial. Inst. Dec. 11. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner did not raise the issue of challenging Petitioner’s identified real party in interest. See generally PO Resp. Thus, we need not address this issue further because we find that Patent Owner has waived any challenge to Petitioner’s identification of the real parties in interest in this proceeding. See Paper 12 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner proposes that the level of ordinary skill in the art is an artisan with a working knowledge of POS activation systems and lottery systems that was gained through a mixture of training and work experience in the relevant field such as (i) having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer communications, electrical engineering, or equivalent degree, coupled with at least three years of work experience; (ii) having a Master’s degree in computer science, computer communications, or electrical engineering, but having less work experience; or (iii) having no formal degree, but having experience in the relevant field of at least six years of work experience. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).5 Patent Owner states that, “[f]or the purpose of this proceeding, Patent Owner adopts the Petition’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 19. 5 Petitioner proposes the same level of ordinary skill in the art that the Board adopted in PGR2020-00084. Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1008, 11). We find that the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’135 patent and the prior art of record. See Inst. Dec. 14; 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). Therefore, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “Following the block quote from Yacenda, the applicant then stated, “[b]ased on the foregoing, Yacenda’s system is directly opposite of the instant claims, as the instant claims require a ‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.’” Ex. 1002, 76. This statement is clear and unmistakable. It (1) specifically states that “the instant claims require” and (2) then states what the claims require—a “‘pre-printed lottery ticket’ which has no lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” We fail to see how the applicant could have been more clear in stating a requirement of the Challenged Claims. And, by doing so, the applicant narrowed the scope of what would otherwise be encompassed in the meaning of “pre-printed lottery ticket” and therefore what would otherwise be encompassed in the scope of the Challenged Claims—a lottery ticket which has lottery numbers associated with it at the time of customer purchase.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not find Mr. Hutton’s testimony particularly helpful. First, we have addressed the points raised by his testimony in our discussion above because they are largely the same as the arguments raised in Petitioner’s Reply. Second, we find his testimony entitled to very little weight because he applies an incorrect understanding of the caselaw, which mirrors Petitioner’s incorrect and arguably misleading quotations of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Quest. In particular, in paragraph 5, Mr. Hutton states the following as his understanding of the law as it applies to prosecution disclaimer: “I also understand that in order to disclaim embodiments within the specification, the statements should have some indication that the applicant intended to surrender embodiments from the specification.” Ex. 1038 ¶ 5 (emphasis added). This then leads Mr. Hutton to state: “[t]hus, in my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not view applicant’s statements as a disclaimer, because the applicant never stated that they intended to surrender multiple embodiments described in the specification.” Id. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). As we explained above in responding to a similar argument by Petitioner, the caselaw does not require an applicant to expressly state whether a disclaimer excludes particular embodiments of the subject specification when disclaiming claim scope during prosecution. See Quest, 924 F.3d at 1229. And, as noted above, counsel for Petitioner agreed that such a statement explicitly disclaiming particular embodiments is not required. Tr. 12:18–13:17. Third, although we have considered Mr. Hutton’s testimony, we find it “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of” “pre-printed lottery ticket.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. In particular, we are cognizant of the Federal Circuit’s guidance that we “should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the prosecution history.” Id. at 1318 (internal quotation omitted). In this instance, for the reasons explained above, we find that Mr. Hutton’s testimony is clearly at odds with the applicant’s arguments during prosecution and that his testimony is based on a misunderstanding of what is required by the governing caselaw for prosecution history disclaimer.” slip op. at 43

  Patent outcomesUS 9,865,135 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,865,135
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00084 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gleichauf, Ovadia, and Lewis because the petitioner did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would have combined Gleichauf and Lewis as …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Dr. Reddy additionally testifies that “URL redirection is a well-known concept in HTTP traffic” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with URL redirection, which was a common technique used to forcibly provide an alternative response to a client’s request for a web page” (id. at ¶ 134). During the oral hearing, Petitioner also stated, citing the Reddy Declaration, that “it was well known to redirect traffic to a separate server.” Tr. 17:8–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 134). This, however, does not provide a sufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis. This rationale and all of the other reasons for the proposed combination proffered by Petitioner establish, at most, that Gleichauf and Lewis could have been combined to meet limitations [1.8] and [1.9], rather than a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination. This is insufficient. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We find, therefore, that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reasoning to support obviousness of claim 1 based on the proposed combination.7 See Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1366–67 (holding that “some kind of motivation must be shown from some source, so that the [trier of fact] can understand why a person of ordinary skill would have thought of either combining two or more references or modifying one to achieve the patented [invention]”)); InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[The expert witness’s] testimony was nothing more than impermissible hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Medvidovic, Patent Owner’s declarant, states that “[f]or the purposes of the subject IPR proceedings,” he “employ[s]” the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Dr. Reddy. Ex. 2009 ¶ 26. Based on the complete record, 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 because Petitioner’s proposal is 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).” slip op. at 13

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

    “The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; PO Resp. 5–6) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. Based on the complete 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 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Therefore, we find that Gleichauf alone provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis identified by Petitioner. As discussed above, in the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis, Gleichauf would be modified such that HTTP traffic from a quarantined device would not be redirected to a remediation server but instead would be redirected to a quarantine server, which serves an informational webpage to the user of the device, as taught by Lewis. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:56–63, 21:1–12; Ex. 1007, 4:24– 31, 13:7–15; Pet. 48). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination contemplates (1) modifying Gleichauf’s network by adding a separate quarantine server, (2) modifying Gleichauf’s policy server to not redirect HTTP traffic from a quarantined device to a remediation server and to instead redirect the HTTP traffic to the quarantine server, and (3) providing a quarantine notice webpage to the user from the quarantine server, including a link to the remediation server, which the user can click on to access the remediation server. In addition, Gleichauf’s policy server would also need to be modified to not provide the notification messages to the user for HTTP traffic to avoid having both the policy server and the quarantine server provide the same or similar information displays to the user. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Reddy explains adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Lewis to introduce such significant changes to the architecture or design of Gleichauf’s network when Gleichauf alone already provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner. See Pet. 26–29; Pet. Reply 14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71. Thus, based on the complete record, we find that the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner do not provide sufficient basis for establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 F. App’x 840, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding that the Board’s general statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references to address the problem of occlusion effect in hearing aids was insufficient when the Board does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Brown, which already includes vents, to address occlusion effect”) (non-precedential); cf. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because each device independently operates effectively, a person having ordinary skill in the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,234,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,705
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00081 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because Petitioner did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would combine Gleichauf and Lewis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Medvidovic, Patent Owner’s declarant, states that “[f]or the purposes of the subject IPR proceedings,” he “employ[s]” the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Dr. Reddy. Ex. 2009 ¶ 26. Based on the complete record, 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 because Petitioner’s proposal is 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).” slip op. at 13

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

    “The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; PO Resp. 5–6) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. Based on the complete 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 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Therefore, we find that Gleichauf alone provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis identified by Petitioner. As discussed above, in the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis, Gleichauf would be modified such that HTTP traffic from a quarantined device would not be redirected to a remediation server but instead would be redirected to a quarantine server, which serves an informational webpage to the user of the device, as taught by Lewis. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:56–63, 21:1–12; Ex. 1007, 4:24– 31, 13:7–15; Pet. 48). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination contemplates (1) modifying Gleichauf’s network by adding a separate quarantine server, (2) modifying Gleichauf’s policy server to not redirect HTTP traffic from a quarantined device to a remediation server and to instead redirect the HTTP traffic to the quarantine server, and (3) providing a quarantine notice webpage to the user from the quarantine server, including a link to the remediation server, which the user can click on to access the remediation server. In addition, Gleichauf’s policy server would also need to be modified to not provide the notification messages to the user for HTTP traffic to avoid having both the policy server and the quarantine server provide the same or similar information displays to the user. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Reddy explains adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Lewis to introduce such significant changes to the architecture or design of Gleichauf’s network when Gleichauf alone already provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner. See Pet. 26–29; Pet. Reply 14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71. Thus, based on the complete record, we find that the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner do not provide sufficient basis for establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 F. App’x 840, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding that the Board’s general statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references to address the problem of occlusion effect in hearing aids was insufficient when the Board does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Brown, which already includes vents, to address occlusion effect”) (non-precedential); cf. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because each device independently operates effectively, a person having ordinary skill in the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,234,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,705
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2022 · IPR2021-00593 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would combine Gleichauf and Lewis as proposed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 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). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Medvidovic, Patent Owner’s declarant, states that “[f]or the purposes of the subject IPR proceedings,” he “employ[s]” the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Dr. Reddy. Ex. 2009 ¶ 26. Based on the complete record, 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 because Petitioner’s proposal is 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).” slip op. at 13

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

    “The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; PO Resp. 5–6) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. Based on the complete 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 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Therefore, we find that Gleichauf alone provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis identified by Petitioner. As discussed above, in the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis, Gleichauf would be modified such that HTTP traffic from a quarantined device would not be redirected to a remediation server but instead would be redirected to a quarantine server, which serves an informational webpage to the user of the device, as taught by Lewis. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:56–63, 21:1–12; Ex. 1007, 4:24– 31, 13:7–15; Pet. 48). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination contemplates (1) modifying Gleichauf’s network by adding a separate quarantine server, (2) modifying Gleichauf’s policy server to not redirect HTTP traffic from a quarantined device to a remediation server and to instead redirect the HTTP traffic to the quarantine server, and (3) providing a quarantine notice webpage to the user from the quarantine server, including a link to the remediation server, which the user can click on to access the remediation server. In addition, Gleichauf’s policy server would also need to be modified to not provide the notification messages to the user for HTTP traffic to avoid having both the policy server and the quarantine server provide the same or similar information displays to the user. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Reddy explains adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Lewis to introduce such significant changes to the architecture or design of Gleichauf’s network when Gleichauf alone already provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner. See Pet. 26–29; Pet. Reply 14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71. Thus, based on the complete record, we find that the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner do not provide sufficient basis for establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 F. App’x 840, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding that the Board’s general statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references to address the problem of occlusion effect in hearing aids was insufficient when the Board does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Brown, which already includes vents, to address occlusion effect”) (non-precedential); cf. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because each device independently operates effectively, a person having ordinary skill in the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,234,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,705
• Platform Science, Inc. v. Omnitracs, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2022 · IPR2020-01612 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 11, 12, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because Coffee did not disclose the claimed copying, and Coffee combined with Heijden did not cure that deficiency.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Initial and Rehearing Decisions, we noted that Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art at that stage of the proceeding and we found “Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’308 patent and the prior art of record.” Initial Dec. 13 (citing 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)); Rehearing Dec. 16 (same). Therefore, we adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Initial Dec. 13; Rehearing Dec. 16. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s offered level of ordinary skill in the art.” PO Resp. 7. Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary finding by adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as set forth above.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “received message 7102 and the header of the response message 7202 are not the same. PO Resp. 25 (citations omitted); Pet. Reply 14. In the Petition, Petitioner argued that “header information” was the same in each message (received and response). Pet. 32 (citations omitted), 36–37. Petitioner relies on Tables 58 and 63, which show “Header.” Id. at 32–33, 37. Petitioner also relies on paragraphs 102 and 118 of Mr. Andrews’s Declaration. Neither the Petition nor Mr. Andrews’s Declaration, however, provide any sufficient basis to find that even a portion of the header or header information is copied from the received message to the response message. Mr. Andrews states his opinion as though it were fact without providing the underlying factual support for his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 102, 118; see 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). In cross-examination, Mr. Andrews provided additional information explaining which portion of the headers he believes are the same, but he still does not provide any explanation as to why he believes the information is copied. See, e.g., Ex. 2007 at 111:3–25. The same is true of Petitioner’s Reply, which reiterates Mr. Andrews’s deposition testimony, but still fails to provide any reason as to why Coffee’s charts or Mr. Andrews’ testimony necessarily means that Coffee copies a portion of the header from the received message to the response message. See Continental Can Co. U.S.A., Inc. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”). And, despite Petitioner’s identification of a “Header” listed in Tables 58 and 63, Coffee does not expressly describe the header or part of the header as being copied from the received message to the response message. The Petition and Mr. Andrews also state that “if Coffee did not employ such copying, the response message would not automatically include information extracted from the received message.” Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 118). But, Coffee does not expressly describe the header as being “extracted from the received message” or describe automatically including the header in a response message to make the leap argued by Petitioner and Mr. Andrews. Accordingly, on the full record before us, we find that Petitioner has not established that Coffee explicitly or inherently discloses copying the header or header information and we do not credit Mr. Andrews’ testimony, discussed above, because he fails to provide the underlying factual basis for the opinions offered.” slip op. at 43

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “proceeding and on the full record before us, we do not find that Coffee’s silence is sufficient to support Petitioner’s argument. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 787 Fed. Appx. 731, 739 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“We do not find any error in the Board changing its understanding of the teachings of [a prior art reference] from the institution decision to the final written decision. ‘The Board is not bound by any findings made in its Institution Decision. At that point, the Board is considering the matter preliminarily without the benefit of a full record. The Board is free to change its view of the merits after further development of the record, and should do so if convinced that its inclinations were wrong.’” (quoting Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Coffee does not explain the process by which the IOD of the received message is included in the response message; rather, Coffee just states that the response message “contains the IOD of the message being answered.” See, e.g., Ex. 1005, 56:63–67 (see full text quoted above). In particular, although Coffee attributes certain actions to the operator, the lack of attribution to the operator does not necessitate that the only viable possibility remaining is that Coffee copies the IOD from the received message to the response message. Even if it may be said that Coffee probably (or possibly) copies the IOD, that probability is not sufficient to find that Coffee necessarily copies the IOD. See Continental Can, 948 F.2d at 1269 (“Inherency . . . may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.”).7 Additionally, on the full record before us, we determine that Mr. Andrews’s testimony, as with his testimony as to copying of the header and selected response, fails to provide any factual or underlying support for his opinions expressed therein. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–102. In particular, the leap occurs in paragraph 102, where Mr. Andrews takes the fact that some information (at least the IOD) from the received formatted message is included with the response message to opine that this means the information is “copied over.” Id. ¶ 102. But, again, Coffee is silent. And because Mr. Andrews did not provide any underlying factual basis for his opinion, we do not credit his testimony as to copying the IOD. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 48

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “generally, including the alleged benefits of such and reasons why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been prompted to include field-mapping information in Coffee’s MDT. See id. at 62–70. None of Petitioner’s discussion, however, explains how the combination of Coffee and Heijden remedies the deficiencies that we identified regarding Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee. In particular, Petitioner does not assert or explain how the teachings of Heijden would be applied to Coffee such that Coffee would then copy or fill in the specific information from Coffee’s received message to Coffee’s response message, particularly as pertains to the header, Response, and IOD fields (which Petitioner relied on in the first ground), or any other information field from Coffee. The same is true of Mr. Andrews’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 214–231. Additionally, it appears that Petitioner’s analysis of the combination of Heijden and Coffee maintains the position that Coffee copies information fields. See Pet. 70 (“Given that Coffee’s system already implements field mapping to copy information fields . . . .”). And, Mr. Andrews’s testimony similarly maintains that Coffee copies information fields. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 229 (“Coffee also discloses (at least inherently) field mapping by describing that data is copied from fields in request messages into corresponding fields in response message.”). But, as we explain in detail in the context of Petitioner’s challenge based on Coffee, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Coffee copies or fills in information from a received message to a response message. Thus, we do not find and Petitioner does not allege that Ground “1B” fills the gaps identified in Petitioner’s Ground “1A.”10 Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Coffee and Heijden would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–4, 7–9, and 12 unpatentable.” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 6,925,308 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,925,308
• ROKU, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,325,486
• Intel Corporation v. Parkervision, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2022 · IPR2020-01302 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 were not determined unpatentable because the asserted Larson and Larson–Butler grounds did not teach sampling.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Neither party contends that the differences in proposals affect the outcome of this proceeding and we do not find that they do. Nonetheless, on the full record before us, we find that our identification of the level of ordinary skill in art from the Institution Decision as well as Patent Owner’s option (b) are supported by the prior art of record, the ’474 patent, and the opinions of Drs. Subramanian and Steer (which, as discussed above, recognize that additional work experience can compensate for the lack of a formal degree). Accordingly, we modify our preliminary finding to include the specifics from option (b) of Patent Owner’s proposal. Thus, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience in the field of RF circuit design, or at least five years of work experience and training in the design and development of RF circuits and/or systems. We also find that less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Because the parties agree that the claims remaining in the trial require “sampling” and also agree that the prior art asserted in this case does not teach “sampling” (as discussed further below), we need not construe these terms expressly to resolve the controversy before us. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. sampling Although claim 1 does not recite “sampling” expressly, the post- institution briefs make clear that the parties agree that claim 1 and its dependent claims require sampling. In particular, Patent Owner contends, (1) “the ’474 patent pertains to a technique called sampling, which involves the use of a ‘switch’” (PO Resp. 2); (2) “all of the challenged claims are directed to a sampling system and, in particular, an energy sampling system (also known as an energy transfer system)” (id.); and (3) “[t]he challenged claims only cover energy sampling and the use of switches” (id. at 20). In its Reply, although Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s interpretation of the claims as limited to energy sampling (i.e., energy transfer systems) (Pet. Reply 3–7), Petitioner contends that based on its “subsequent analysis of [Patent Owner’s] foundational ’551 patent—one of the multiple patents which the ’474 patent incorporates by reference—[Petitioner] now agrees with [Patent Owner] that the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling.” Pet. Reply 2. Thus, at a minimum, the parties agree that the claims at issue in this proceeding require sampling.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Discussion As discussed above, the parties now agree that (1) the claims at issue in this proceeding require “sampling” and (2) Larson alone or in combination with Butler do not disclose “sampling” and do not otherwise render the claims unpatentable. See Pet. Reply 2 (stating Petitioner agrees that “the claims cover only systems that down-convert by sampling”), 13 (stating that Larson and Butler do not disclose “down-conversion by sampling” and therefore agreeing that “Larson and Butler do not invalidate those claims”); see Ex. 2031, 6:20–22 (Patent Owner explaining, that “as the Board is aware, both parties agree that sampling is in the claims, and the claims are not invalid in view of all the cited prior art” (capitalization altered)). As such, based on Petitioner’s explicit admissions, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) Larson anticipates claims 1, 3, 4, and 9–11 or (2) the combination of Larson and Butler would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, and 9–11 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,539,474 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,539,474
• Hulu, LLC / Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 27, 2021 · IPR2020-00647 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable over Pyle and Marusi or Lewis and Marusi because each ground failed to establish a required claim limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 8–9 (citing 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)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in adaptive streaming and content management” or “a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in adaptive streaming or content management” and that “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” See Inst. Dec. 7–9 (setting forth and adopting Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art) (alteration in original).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “the case law makes clear 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’” unless an “extremely limited” exception applies. See Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 812 F.3d 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting KCJ Corp., 223 F.3d at 1356; Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Here, claim 1 recites the transitional phrase “comprising,” meaning it is open-ended, and, therefore, the usual meaning of “a” as “one or more” would have been expected absent an extremely limited exception. In considering whether an exception applies, our review of the ’720 patent fails to indicate that the patentee intended the phrase to mean anything other than the usual meaning of “one or more.” Patent Owner asserts that “‘[t]he plain language of the claim clearly indicates only a single [list] is used’ to list multiple assets” and quotes two portions of the Specification, which state “a list of assets that satisfies criteria” and “a list of assets to which a . . . device is granted access.” PO Sur-reply 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:60–67) (citing Ex. 1001, 2:23–34, 3:1–5, 4:21–23, 17:59–66). Although claim 1 of the ’720 patent recites “assets” in the plural, we fail to see how that conveys that the term “a” would have been understood as limited to “one.” Notably, neither party has identified any inconsistency, in the claims or other portions of the Specification (including the portions quoted and/or cited by Patent Owner), resulting from construing “a” as “one or more.” And, we find that there is no reason why the claims could not be met under the construction of “a” as “one or more.” Thus, we find that the ’720 patent does not “evince [ ] a clear intent to limit a or an to one.” See Convolve, 812 F.3d at 1321 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we construe the term “a” in “a list of assets” as “one or more” such that the phrase “a list of assets” means “one or more list of assets.” Considering next the phrase “the list of assets” recited in limitation 1[d], the parties do not dispute that the use of the term “the” means that “the list of assets” refers back to the one or more list of assets retrieved in limitation 1[c] and discussed above. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. Similarly, the parties do not dispute that the phrase “the filtered list of assets,” recited in limitation 1[e], refers back to the list of assets resulting from the filtering step of limitation 1[d]. See PO Resp. 3–4; see generally Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply 5. We agree with the parties that each of these phrases refers back to the previous instance of the recited terms.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Fundamentally, Petitioner fails to provide any reason in the Petition as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to retrieve a list of assets based on Lewis. Instead of providing a reason as to why retrieving a list of assets would have been obvious, Petitioner points to a result achieved by Lewis—generating a dynamic manifest file that contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. In the context before us, pointing to a result to allege that a step in a process leading to the result would have been obvious is insufficient without also providing a reason with rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”)). Here, Petitioner relies upon the result of Lewis’s process—generating a dynamic manifest file containing a list of URLs—as the only basis as to why a previous step in the claim would have been obvious without providing any reason why the achieved result means the previous step would have been obvious. Further, although Petitioner cites to Dr. Reader’s declaration (Ex. 1003 ¶ 233), Dr. Reader’s testimony does not provide any further explanation or reason as to why this aspect of limitation 1[c] would have been obvious.11 Rather, the Petition’s 11 To the extent Petitioner relies upon its discussion of the combined teachings of Lewis and Marusi as set forth at the beginning of Petitioner’s discussion of this ground (see Pet. 54–57), that portion of the Petition does not provide an additional reason why retrieving a list of assets as recited in discussion appears to be exactly the same as Dr. Reader’s testimony on this point. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets in light of Lewis is not supported sufficiently on the record before us.” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)New argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “In its Reply, Petitioner contends that “[c]ontrary to [Patent Owner’s] claim that Lewis does not teach a list and that there was no reason to modify Lewis’ system ([PO Resp.] 30–32), the Petition and Dr. Reader clearly explain why lists and database operations would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. Reply 19 (citing Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 237–239). Petitioner reiterates the position asserted in the Petition—that it would have been obvious to retrieve a list of assets because Lewis teaches that a dynamic manifest file contains a list of URLs to container files containing content. Id. Petitioner also contends that “Lewis itself explains that it was well-known that manifest files contain a list of media assets to be played.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 20 (noting that “Manifest Resp. 37–38 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 79). In its Reply, Petitioner responds to Patent Owner’s assertion by pointing to stored video segments 375 as assets, not just processed video segments 315a–c. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 230–231). In the Petition, Petitioner did not assert or rely upon stored video segments 375 as teaching the recited “assets” or “list of assets”; rather, Petitioner relied upon processed video segments 315a–c. See Pet. 62. Petitioner’s attempt to assert, for the first time, in its Reply that processed video segments 375 also teach the recited “assets” is an improper reply argument. See, e.g., Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 74, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/tpgnov.pdf (“Generally, a reply . . . may only respond to arguments raised in the preceding brief. . . . ‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing. . . . Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability . . . of an original . . . claim . . . .”); see PO Sur-reply 16–18 (discussing Petitioner’s new argument). Petitioner’s attempt to (1) rely upon stored video segments 375 to teach the recited assets and (2) assert that Lewis teaches, as opposed to rendering obvious, retrieving a list of assets are both new arguments that are inappropriately raised for the first time in Petitioner’s Reply and, therefore, we disregard them. file 257 includes entries 258a through 258f”), Fig. 2 (noting that Figure 2 shows entries pointing to video segments)).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 9,270,720 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,270,720
• Netflix Inc. / Hulu, LLC v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2021 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable because Kaku was not established as analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artNot shown unpatentableNon analogous artNot shown unpatentable

    “A reference is considered analogous prior art: (1) if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter, or (2) if “the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved,” even though the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. The field of endeavor test asks if the structure and function of the prior art is such that it would be considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art because of the similarity to the structure and function of the claimed invention. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325–27. A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor’s endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor’s attention in considering his problem. In re Clay, 966 F.2d at 659.” slip op. at 19

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

    “Petitioner proposes constructions for three claim terms, including the term “trick play functionality.” Pet. 22–23. Patent Owner argues for construction of the related claim term “the first and second indexes enabling trick play functionality.” See PO Resp. 41–49. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any of those claim terms because construction of the proposed terms does not impact our determination that Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedNot reached

    “Under the particular circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance that Kaku is analogous prior art to the ’792 patent and do not reach Petitioner’s arguments on the motivation to combine Kaku with Zetts or Seo. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “As discussed above (supra § III.E.4.a), Petitioner’s papers fail to link Dr. Reader’s declaration testimony on the level of ordinary skill in the art to the analogous art inquiry and fail to identify a field of endeavor for the ’792 patent. We therefore agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s demonstrative slide 53 presents improper new arguments that have not been previously made. See Paper 38, 2 (“The parties may only rely upon evidence that has been previously submitted in the proceeding and may only present arguments that have been previously made in the submitted papers. No new evidence or arguments may be presented at the hearing.”), 5 (“Demonstratives are not a mechanism for making new arguments.”). We therefore sustain Patent Owner’s objections. We note, however, that demonstratives are not evidence. See id. at 5 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the hearing are not evidence, nor will they be relied upon as evidence. Rather, demonstratives are visual aids to a party’s oral presentation regarding arguments and evidence previously presented and discussed in the papers”); CTPG 84 (“Demonstrative exhibits used at the final hearing are aids to oral argument and not evidence.”). In this Final Written Decision, we rely solely on the arguments properly presented in the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, not on the demonstratives.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,792

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.