- PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01108 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10–15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 under § 103 and granted BRP’s motion to join the Foil Boarding IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding and based on our preliminary review, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims for the same reasons discussed in our Decision on Institution in the Foil Boarding IPR. Granting the Petition and joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR will provide us with the opportunity to more fully consider Patent Owner’s arguments—first raised in response to the petition in the Foil Boarding IPR—in the context in which they were first raised. Those common arguments will be fully considered in the Foil Boarding IPR, with the benefit of a complete record.8 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’044 patent. We therefore grant the Petition, and institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“challenges the same claims on the same grounds using the same prior art, Kyocera factor (2) favors joinder. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. Indeed, the Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016- 00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016). Moreover, because the issues to be decided are the same and Petitioner avers that it will take an “understudy” role to Foil Boarding in the Foil Boarding IPR by consolidating all filings, refraining from advancing new arguments, binding itself to any discovery agreements, and limiting its deposition time to the time already allotted, Kyocera factors (3) and (4) also favor joinder. See Mot. 4–6; Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. For the reasons explained above, we find that joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR is appropriate under the present circumstances. We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,359,044 - PTAB · Jan 15, 2025 · IPR2024-01107 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, and 15 under § 103 and granted BRP’s motion to join IPR2024-00085.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding and based on our preliminary review, we find Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims for the same reasons discussed in our Decision on Institution in the Foil Boarding IPR. Granting the Petition and joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR will provide us with the opportunity to more fully consider Patent Owner’s arguments—first raised in response to the petition in the Foil Boarding IPR—in the context in which they were first raised. Those common arguments will be fully considered in the Foil Boarding IPR, with the benefit of a complete record.8 Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing the unpatentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’659 patent. We therefore grant the Petition, and institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments. Because the Petition challenges the same claims on the same grounds using the same prior art, Kyocera factor (2) favors joinder. See Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. Indeed, the Board “routinely grants motions for joinder where the party seeking joinder introduces identical arguments and the same grounds raised in the existing proceeding.” Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Raytheon Co., IPR2016- 00962, Paper 12 at 9 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2016). Moreover, because the issues to be decided are the same and Petitioner avers that it will take an “understudy” role to Foil Boarding in the Foil Boarding IPR by consolidating all filings, refraining from advancing new arguments, binding itself to any discovery agreements, and limiting its deposition time to the time already allotted, Kyocera factors (3) and (4) also favor joinder. See Mot. 4–6; Kyocera, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4. For the reasons explained above, we find that joining Petitioner to the Foil Boarding IPR is appropriate under the present circumstances. We, therefore, grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 8
NonePatents in suitUS 9,586,659 - NXP USA, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 19, 2024 · IPR2024-01068 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5, 8, 9, 11–23, 26, 27, and 29–36 on all petitioned grounds and granted NXP's conditional motion to join the TI IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claims of the ’528 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2024-00936.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“As set forth in the Director’s Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation (dated June 21, 2022), at 7, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf, the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1041) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Additionally, we do not see an issue with ambiguity in Petitioner’s stipulation. Specifically, following joinder, this IPR (i.e., IPR2024-01068), which is based on the Petition at issue here (i.e., the Petition filed by NXP), will still be pending even though Petitioner will be joined to IPR2024-00936. Thus, the “IPR from this [P]etition” will be “pending,” which satisfies the language of Petitioner’s stipulation and precludes the actions stated therein. Further, to the extent there was any potential ambiguity, that ambiguity is resolved by Petitioner’s representations in e-mail correspondence (Exhibit 3001), as noted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel litigation.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“Compare Pet. with TI IPR, Paper 2 (petition); see also Motion 2 (stating that “NXP’s petition challenges the same claims on the same grounds, relies on the same prior art, and includes the exact same substantive arguments as the TI IPR”). Patent Owner raises the same arguments that it presented in the TI IPR. Regarding the first ground, Patent Owner asserts that (1) Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Tayloe, TI Datasheet, and Macnally (Prelim. Resp. 5– 9) and (2) Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reasonable expectation of success in combining Macnally and Tayloe (id. at 9–12). Additionally, Patent Owner contends we should exercise our discretion to deny institution” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We have explained that a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013).” slip op. at 10
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,118,528 - NXP USA, Inc. v. Parkervision, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 19, 2024 · IPR2024-01066 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 14 under all three obviousness grounds and granted NXP’s conditional motion to join the Texas Instruments IPR.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR . . . in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner’s stipulation (Ex. 1041) satisfies the language from the Director’s Memorandum quoted above. Additionally, we do not see an issue with ambiguity in Petitioner’s stipulation. Specifically, following joinder, this IPR (i.e., IPR2024-01066), which is based on the Petition at issue here (i.e., the Petition filed by NXP), will still be pending even though Petitioner will be joined to IPR2024-00935. Thus, the “IPR from this [P]etition” will be “pending,” which satisfies the language of Petitioner’s stipulation and precludes the actions stated therein. Further, to the extent there was any potential ambiguity, that ambiguity is resolved by Petitioner’s representations in e-mail correspondence (Exhibit 3001), as noted above. Therefore, we need not analyze each Fintiv factor to reach the determination that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution in view of the parallel litigation.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, we institute inter partes review of the Challenged Claim of the ’177 patent. We also grant Petitioner’s Conditional Motion for Joinder and join Petitioner to IPR2024-00935.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“join as a party to [an instituted] inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that . . . after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response . . . warrants the institution of an inter partes review under section 314. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c). We have explained that a motion for joinder should: (1) set forth reasons why joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified.” slip op. at 7
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,865,177 - PTAB · Jul 24, 2024 · IPR2024-00465 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–24 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Irwin renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in 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.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than the patents at issue in PGR2020-00084 and IPR2023- 01235. Challenging claims of different patents significantly distinguishes the facts here from those in General Plastic, and we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to extend General Plastic in this regard. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we leave these matters for the state court. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to pursue its argument that Linq3 is a real party in 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.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“5. Weighing the Graham Factors “Once all relevant facts are found, the ultimate legal determination [of obviousness] involves the weighing of the fact findings to conclude whether the claimed combination would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan.” Arctic Cat, 876 F.3d at 1361. On balance, considering the record presently before us, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Irwin would have rendered the subject matter of claims 1–9 and 11–24 of the ’451 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,488,451 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2022-00615 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 16 is unpatentable as obvious over Ellsberry; the Board did not reach the Perego-422 grounds because Ground 3 was dispositive.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“We entered an Order for Petitioner to complete the additional discovery as authorized by the Director, and for the parties to propose a briefing schedule for the additional discovery. Paper 42. Petitioner filed the authorized additional discovery as exhibits and a Summary of Responses to the Additional Discovery (Paper 46) along with a Motion to Seal (Paper 43), which we granted (Paper 49). We then authorized a schedule for the parties to brief the applicability of the additional discovery to the issue of whether Google was a real party in interest and the Petition thus time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Papers 51–57. After consideration of the evidence, we determined by Order on Remand from the Director (Paper 62 (parties and Board), Paper 64 (public)) that Google was not a real party in interest and that this proceeding thus was not time-barred.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“After briefing on the additional discovery but before our Order on Remand from the Director, Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Technology Texas, LLC (“the Micron entities”) filed a petition and requested joinder to this proceeding. IPR2023-00203, Papers 1, 3. We granted the Micron entities’ petition for inter partes review and joined them as parties on the petitioner side of this case. Id. at Paper 8. A copy of that institution decision was entered in this proceeding. Paper 58. We refer to Samsung and the Micron entities together as “Petitioner” in this Decision.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we accept Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art except that we omit the qualifiers “at least” before years of education and experience because they render the level ambiguous and may encompass levels that are beyond ordinary. Otherwise, we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art consistent with the ’912 patent and the applied prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“However, the subsequent emphasized sentences (id. at 8:54–60) could only be understood in favor of Petitioner’s interpretation. If “the command signal is passed through to both associated ranks” and “the command signal is sent to both memory devices,” each rank must have only one memory device. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that this passage means that a rank may have only one memory device. Patent Owner argues that this paragraph of the ’912 patent (id. at 8:44–64) must be read in conjunction with its Figures which show multiple memory devices per rank. PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:31–38, 20:64–65, 22:34–35, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 3A; Ex. 2062 ¶¶ 106–107). However, the disputed paragraph refers to “certain embodiments” which do not necessarily correspond exactly to what the Figures depict, and the Figures are described as “exemplary” and “compatible with” or “in accordance with certain embodiments described herein.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:32–48. We find no statement here or elsewhere in the ’912 patent that a rank must include multiple memory devices, and cannot include a single memory device.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 7,619,912 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,619,912 - PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01235 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–6 on all petition grounds; the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Szrek and did not reach the Llach–Szrek ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“We disagree. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the fact pattern presented here is not the typical situation in which the factors from General Plastic are considered. In particular, this proceeding challenges claims of a different patent than at issue in IPR2020-00084. Second, although the parties may have gained insight as to how the Board would handle challenges based on the same references asserted in the earlier proceeding, that insight (to the extent it gives an advantage) applies to both parties. Third, the first proceeding was a post-grant review that had a specific timing requirement (see 35 U.S.C. § 321(c)), in contrast to the present proceeding in which the filing of the Petition did not have the same or similar time constraint.6 In these circumstances, we find it appropriate to give less weight to factors based on the mere passage of time such as whether Petitioner knew of the prior art at the time of filing the petition in PGR2020- 00084 (clearly Petitioner did because two of the same references are asserted here) and whether Petitioner had received Patent Owner’s preliminary response from PGR2020-00084 at the time of filing the instant Petition. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“Even assuming Linq3 is a real party in interest to Petitioner and assuming we may exercise our discretion to deny institution based on unclean hands (see Kavo Dental Techs, LLC v. Osseo Imaging, Inc., IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 at 19 (PTAB June 10, 2020)), Patent Owner essentially asks us to resolve multiple factual issues related to its contract dispute with Linq3 to justify denial of institution. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 1– 26. Many, if not all, of these issues appear to be involved in the contract dispute, which will be resolved by the Arizona state court. We are not in a good position to make determinations about these particular issues at this stage of the proceeding, on the limited record before us. Rather, we find that the state court is better suited to address the conduct of Linq3 of which Patent Owner complains. Accordingly, we do not dive headfirst into these matters that are better addressed by the state court. 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.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 13).7 Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we find that Petitioner’s uncontested 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 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 Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, in our consideration of the issues presently before us.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that we should follow the Board’s decision in PGR2020-00084 and construe “transaction processor” and “data package” in accordance with each term’s plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 13; see id. at 13–19. Patent Owner does not take a position as to claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. In PGR2020-00084, the Board construed “transaction processor”8 in accordance with its plain meaning as “a processor . . . that processes transactions between two devices” and specifically “decline[d] to limit processors . . . to ‘third party’ processors . . . because the intrinsic record does not justify such a modification and it would create uncertainty.” Ex. 1008, 22. And, as Petitioner indicates, the Board determined that “data package” also is understood in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 22–24; see id. at 24 n.10. At this stage of the proceeding 8 In that proceeding, the Board also construed “transaction processor system.” Ex. 1008, 13–22. and on the present record, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because none are in dispute. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,865,135 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01193 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“c) Conclusion for Claim 1 We find that the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the subject matter recited in claim 1 and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Jenne and Cohen in the manner asserted by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Patent Owner’s asserted objective evidence of non-obviousness lacks nexus and does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Therefore, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious based on the combined teachings of Jenne and Cohen.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or the equivalent and at least two years of experience in the relevant field, e.g., electronic communications systems. Significantly more practical experience could also qualify one not having the aforementioned education as a person of ordinary skill in the art while, conversely, a higher level of education could offset a lesser amount of experience. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 96). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. In further contrast to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony, Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 319 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok persuasively testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Ex. 1003 ¶ 308. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 289 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner, that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 9,892,287 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,892,287 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01190 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds and granted consolidation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 310 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 321. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 292 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access memory (NVRAM) or a flash ROM. Ex 1003 ¶ 310 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 23, 27, Fig. 3). Dr. Zadok testifies that Cohen’s disclosure of storing information in nonvolatile memory is consistent with Jenne’s disclosure. Id. ¶ 321. We find Petitioner’s reasoning to combine Jenne and Cohen to be persuasive. As Petitioner correctly points out (Pet. 19), Cohen expressly teaches that the benefits of displaying owner information with a password prompt when the computer is started are that “the likelihood that a lost or misplaced personal computer device will be returned to its owner [is] greatly enhanced and [that] ownership of otherwise fungible devices may be easily determined.” Ex. 1006, 5:52–58; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 292 (Dr. Zadok testifying that Cohen’s disclosure shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to display owner information during boot-up). Thus, we find that Cohen’s express disclosure provides a rationale for a person of ordinary skill in the art to display a particular type of information, specifically owner information, in the system of Jenne. We agree with Petitioner that “the combination would have involved a simple substitution of a known generic element (Jenne’s ‘other information’) with a specific type of information (Cohen’s ‘ownership indicia’) to obtain predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–16).” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,789,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,789,393 - Google LLC / Microsoft Corporation v. Carolyn W. HafemanAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2024 · IPR2022-01191 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Jenne and Cohen; the Board did not reach the remaining grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted
“I. INTRODUCTION In these inter partes reviews, Google LLC and Microsoft Corporation (collectively “Petitioner”) challenge the patentability of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent 10,789,393 B2 (Ex. 1001 (“’393 patent”)), which is owned by Carolyn W. Hafeman (“Patent Owner”). Petitioner requests that we consolidate these cases. IPR2022-01190, Paper 24 at 1. Patent Owner opposes. IPR2022-01190, Paper 28 at 1. Because these cases address the same claims, we grant Petitioner’s request to consolidate them pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a). See also 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) (giving Director discretion to consolidate proceedings).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment or offer her own assessment. See PO Resp. To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience. The qualifier expands the range indefinitely without an upper bound, and thus, precludes a meaningful indication of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“security by keeping ownership indicia constant after the initial set-up or configuration change.” PO Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2040 ¶ 54(b)). Patent Owner cites the following testimony from Dr. Schaefer to support this assertion: Cohen discloses a method where the owner enters “a textual indicia of personal ownership” “during set-up or during a configuration change.” Cohen is specifically designed to keep ownership indicia constant. Although Cohen states that ownership indicia can be stored in RAM or nonvolatile memory, Cohen makes clear that nonvolatile memory is preferred because it cannot be altered, whereas ownership information stored in the RAM could be “easily defeated” by removing the battery. Thus, Cohen’s objective is to keep its local ownership indicia constant after an initial set-up or configuration change. Ex. 2040 ¶ 54(b) (citing Ex. 1006, 2:31–35, 4:50–5:4); see PO Resp. 29 (quoting this testimony), 32 (citing this testimony). We do not credit Dr. Schaefer’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Cohen’s disclosure. In particular, Cohen discloses “storing of the personal ownership indicia and password data within nonvolatile memory, such as ROM 26,” which Cohen states “is preferably implemented utilizing so-called ‘flash’ ROM or serial EEPROM, which may be electrically altered upon application of suitable control signals.” Ex. 1006, 3:44–47, 4:47–50. Thus, contrary to Dr. Schaefer’s testimony that Cohen states a preference for nonvolatile memory because it cannot be altered, Cohen expressly discloses using nonvolatile memory that can be altered, so that the system may not “be easily defeated by opening the case of portable computer device 10 and temporarily removing the battery, rendering this information erased.” Ex. 1006, 4:54–57. Dr. Zadok testifies that Jenne also discloses storing information in nonvolatile memory, such as nonvolatile random access” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner argues that certain language in each independent claim should be interpreted to require the automatic display of certain information “during or after every boot-up.” Pet. 9–11. Second, Petitioner argues that the return and recovery information recited in the claims is merely printed matter that is not entitled to patentable weight. Pet. 12. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s claim construction arguments. PO Resp. 9–21. For her part, Patent Owner argues that the terms “computer recovery information,” “recovery information,” and “return information” mean “information provided by the owner so that the device can be returned to the owner,” and she argues that “owner” means “the person or entity that owns, rents, or licenses the recovery application or program, and/or the person or entity who controls the recovery service.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:33–34, 4:4–5, 4:49–51, 11:11–13; Ex. 2035, 6–7, 19–20). As explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches the content of the return/recovery information under Patent Owner’s construction, and, therefore, we need not resolve whether such information is entitled to patentable weight. Furthermore, as explained below, the combination of Jenne and Cohen teaches displaying the return/recovery information during or after every boot-up and teaches “owner” under Patent Owner’s construction. Therefore, because there are no claim construction disputes between the parties that affect the analysis of unpatentability based on the combination of Jenne and Cohen, we need not resolve these claim construction issues. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 10,789,393 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,789,393
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.