- Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 2, 2020 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied DivX’s rehearing request, leaving the institution decision in place because the rule remained effective and Dr. McDaniel’s testimony was supported on the record.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“assertions regarding Dr. McDaniel’s testimony. Dr. McDaniel testified that (a) Chen teaches video data streams, (b) “[a]s was widely known in the art, for example as disclosed by Grab-333,[1] a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that video data streams were comprised of a series of video frames,” and (c) a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have understood that Chen teaches a plurality of frames of video are encrypted using at least one scrambling key/control word.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 112;” slip op. at 3
NonePatents in suitUS 9,184,920 - Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 22, 2020 · IPR2019-01484 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Everstar’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–30 because it had not shown an abuse of discretion.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“As Petitioner points out, the ’097 patent characterizes reinforcing strands 102a–c as “extend[ing] axially through the center portion of wire 10[0].” Ex. 1001, 14:59–60. Our construction of “disposed at a central portion,” which requires strands to be positioned in the wire so as to occupy at least the center of the wire, is consistent with both the description of strands 102a–c as extending through the center portion of the wire in the ’097 patent specification and the depiction of strands 102a–c in the center of wire 100 in Figure 5. Petitioner appears to argue that because reinforcing strands 102a–c occupy a space that is larger than “simply the central axis of the wire,” any strands disposed inside the wire (i.e., within the outer insulating layer of the wire) are also “disposed at a central portion of the wire.” Req. Reh’g 5. Nothing in Figure 5 or the ’097 patent’s description of Figure 5, however, supports a construction of “disposed at a central portion” that means simply “disposed inside the wire.” To the contrary, Petitioner’s argument is undermined by the fact that the ’097 patent expressly refers to the reinforcing strands 102a–c as extending through the central portion, but does not use the same language to characterize the position of conducting strands 104.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a genuine dispute of material fact exists with regard to the parties’ proposed construction of “disposed at a central portion.” Petitioner acknowledges that its declarant, Dr. Fantone, testified that none of the claim terms required a specific construction and that the claim terms “would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.” Req. Reh’g 13–14 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 22). As Petitioner points out, Dr. Brown, Patent Owner’s declarant, did not offer any “statement of disagreement with Petitioner’s position that the terms should be afforded their ordinary and customary meaning.” Req. Reh’g 14. As a result, there is no “conflicting” testimony from the declarants on this point. Nor is there any conflicting testimony from the declarants regarding the ordinary and customary meaning of “disposed at a central portion.” Although Dr. Fantone testified generally that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what “disposed at a central portion” means, Dr. Fantone never explained what that understanding would be. Thus, there is no dispute of material fact on this record regarding the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim term.” slip op. at 9
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,671,097 - Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jun 30, 2020 · IPR2019-01484 · APJ Jeffrey W Abraham · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution for claims 1–30, finding no abuse of discretion in its claim-construction analysis or treatment of factual disputes.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The party challenging a decision in a request for rehearing bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (2019). A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on a petition, the decision will be reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“strands 102a–c as “extend[ing] axially through the center portion of wire 10[0].” Ex. 1001, 14:59–60. Our construction of “disposed at a central portion,” which requires strands to be positioned in the wire so as to occupy at least the center of the wire, is consistent with both the description of strands 102a–c as extending through the center portion of the wire in the ’097 patent specification and the depiction of strands 102a–c in the center of wire 100 in Figure 5. Petitioner appears to argue that because reinforcing strands 102a–c occupy a space that is larger than “simply the central axis of the wire,” any strands disposed inside the wire (i.e., within the outer insulating layer of the wire) are also “disposed at a central portion of the wire.” Req. Reh’g 5. Nothing in Figure 5 or the ’097 patent’s description of Figure 5, however, supports a construction of “disposed at a central portion” that means simply “disposed inside the wire.” To the contrary, Petitioner’s argument is undermined by the fact that the ’097 patent expressly refers to the reinforcing strands 102a–c as extending through the central portion, but does not use the same language to characterize the position of conducting strands 104.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“construction of “plurality of reinforcing strands” contradicts the ’097 patent specification. Req. Reh’g 10–12. In our Decision, however, we never expressly construed this term. Instead, we noted that the ’097 patent addresses the possibility that yarn, which itself comprises multiple strands, can be used to form a single reinforcing strand. Dec. 34–35. We did not, as Petitioner contends, determine that “twisted strands must only be one reinforcing strand.” Req. Reh’g 10–11. To the contrary, as Petitioner itself points out, we expressly noted that the ’097 patent distinguishes between embodiments having a single reinforcing strand and those having multiple reinforcing strands. Req. Reh’g 10; Dec. 35. In view of this, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that we adopted a claim construction of “plurality of reinforcing strands” that contradicts the ’097 patent’s specification, which in turn “led to a clearly erroneous Institution Decision with respect to claims 16–22.” Req. Reh’g 12.” slip op. at 7
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We first note that Petitioner presents new evidence for the first time in the Request for Rehearing. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), a petition must set forth how the challenged claims are to be construed. In this proceeding, the Petition contains one paragraph addressing claim construction. Pet. 7. In the paragraph, Petitioner states a claim should be “accorded its ‘ordinary and customary meaning . . . as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent’” and, in a single sentence within that paragraph, indicates that “no terms require a specific construction.” Pet. 7. Petitioner thus had the opportunity to present its claim construction arguments and supporting evidence in its Petition, and chose not to do so. By way of contrast, in the Request for Rehearing, Petitioner allocates seven pages to the construction of the term “disposed at a central portion.” Req. Reh’g. 2–8. Petitioner is attempting to use the Request for Rehearing as an opportunity to reply to our Decision and present new arguments and evidence on claim construction. A request for rehearing, however, is not an opportunity merely to disagree with the Board’s assessment of the arguments or weighing of the evidence, or for Petitioner to present new arguments or evidence.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,671,097 - Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2020 · IPR2019-00840 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because it did not show error in the Board’s § 325(d) analysis.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner did not argue, in the Petition, that FIPA97 was released as individual parts. Petitioner’s Rehearing Request (page 8) cites to the Petition at page 20 and Exhibit 1054. Page 20 of the Petition, however, contains Petitioner’s argument that FIPA97 was made publicly available as a single document, as discussed above. It does not include any argument or suggestion that FIPA97 was released as individual parts. Additionally, Exhibit 1054 is not cited on page 20 of the Petition in the discussion of FIPA97 nor does it appear that Exhibit 1054 was cited anywhere in the Petition. Thus, because Petitioner did not argue, in the Petition, that FIPA97 was released as individual parts, we could not have overlooked that argument. Petitioner’s contention of error in our determination that FIPA97 was involved during examination of the ’128 patent application is premised upon finding that FIPA97 existed as individual parts. Because Petitioner fails to demonstrate that we overlooked an argument that was not made, we are not persuaded of error.” slip op. at 4
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2020 · IPR2019-00838 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because Microsoft did not show the Board overlooked arguments made in the petition.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“and the prior art relied upon in Petitioner’s challenges to the ’128 patent, Petitioner did not address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in the Petition (Paper 1). Instead, Petitioner made two critical representations—(1) that the Examiner of the ’128 patent “did not have FIPA97 before him, or any other FIPA reference for that matter” (Pet. 1) and (2) that despite there being seven “Parts” to FIPA97, “FIPA97 was made publicly available as a single document” and was “developed and published as a single, integrated work.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1055 (FIPA97 Table of Contents for Parts 1–7)); Ex. 1026, 5 (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, “Resolution of Munich meeting”). In the Petition (Paper 1), Petitioner never contended that FIPA97 was published or available as separate and distinct parts, such that access to one part might not mean access to each other part. Rather, Petitioner’s sole statement regarding separate parts was that it filed FIPA97 as seven separate exhibits “due to its size and numbering schedule.” Id. at 20. Accordingly, on the record presented, we agreed with Petitioner’s representation and we found that FIPA97 (Exs. 1006–1012) constitutes a single document, which we then found was involved during examination of the ’128 patent application. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Apr 3, 2020 · IPR2019-00839 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Microsoft's rehearing request, leaving institution denied under § 325(d) because it did not show the Board overlooked arguments about FIPA97 or misweighed the Becton factors.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for patent owner
“and the prior art relied upon in Petitioner’s challenges to the ’128 patent, Petitioner did not address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) in the Petition (Paper 1). Instead, Petitioner made two critical representations—(1) that the Examiner of the ’128 patent “did not have FIPA97 before him, or any other FIPA reference for that matter” (Pet. 1) and (2) that despite there being seven “Parts” to FIPA97, “FIPA97 was made publicly available as a single document” and was “developed and published as a single, integrated work.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1055 (FIPA97 Table of Contents for Parts 1–7)); Ex. 1026, 5 (Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents, “Resolution of Munich meeting”). In the Petition (Paper 1), Petitioner never contended that FIPA97 was published or available as separate and distinct parts, such that access to one part might not mean access to each other part. Rather, Petitioner’s sole statement regarding separate parts was that it filed FIPA97 as seven separate exhibits “due to its size and numbering schedule.” Id. at 20. Accordingly, on the record presented, we agreed with Petitioner’s representation and we found that FIPA97 (Exs. 1006–1012) constitutes a single document, which we then found was involved during examination of the ’128 patent application. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,036,128 - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 2, 2020 · IPR2018-01670 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Burroughs and Steenfeldt-Jensen; Petitioner’s motion to exclude is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, or an equivalent degree” and “would have understood the basics of medical-device design and manufacturing, and the basic mechanical elements (e.g., gears, pistons) involved in drug-delivery devices.” Dec. to Inst. 15 (quoting Pet. 15).” slip op. at 11
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“Therefore, we are not persuaded to exclude the exhibits or expressly limit their purpose pursuant to FRE 105 and Petitioner’s Motion is denied with respect to these exhibits.” slip op. at 93
Patent outcomesUS 8,679,069 unpatentableNonecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,679,069 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 26, 2020 · IPR2018-01661 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 15, and 16 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations failed to establish the claimed power gain and power loss relationship used to determine whether to power down.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the testimony of Dr. Raghunathan, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’014 patent “would have had at least an M.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience), and would have three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 57–58). In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal with a modification to the level of education based on Patent Owner’s proposal in its Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 7 (citing Prelim. Resp. 5). Specifically, we determined that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” Id. Neither party argues during trial that our definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. See PO Resp. 2–3. See generally Pet. Reply. Because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and three years of experience with computer hardware and software power management design techniques.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We need only construe claim terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In this proceeding, neither party proposes a formal construction for any term. See Pet. 23; PO Resp. 3. We find it unnecessary to construe expressly any claim terms to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence on the complete record now before us, we find Petitioner has not shown that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Takahashi’s “predetermined value” to be an estimated power gain. Patent Owner, with the support of Dr. Wolfe’s credible testimony, persuasively argues that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is a previous value of the cache-miss rate. Petitioner, on the other hand, does not point to anything in Takahashi that describes the “predetermined value” as an estimated power gain, nor does Petitioner cite any testimony from Dr. Raghunathan in support of its position other than a portion of his declaration that is substantially the same as the discussion in the Petition. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 80); see also Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 72– 80 (testimony substantially the same as pages 29–34 of the Petition). Without any suggestion in Takahashi that the “predetermined value” relates to an estimated power gain, Takahashi’s stated goal of reducing power consumption is not sufficient to show that Takahashi’s “predetermined value” is representative of an estimated power gain. For these reasons, we find that Petitioner has not established that Takahashi teaches or suggests an estimated power gain or determining whether to power down a portion of a device component in response to a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss, as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Takahashi.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We focus on one argument we find particularly persuasive—that Hu does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to “determin[e] whether to power down” a cache or a portion of a cache, as required by claim 1, even if the L2Access:leak ratio can be considered a relationship between an estimated power gain and an estimated power loss. See PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-reply 16–18. In its Reply, Petitioner alleges that “Hu explicitly discloses using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine when to power down the L1 cache.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98). Petitioner, however, does not support this proposition by quoting or citing specific language in Hu, relying only on Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration, which provides substantially the same discussion as the Petition. Compare Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97–98, with Pet. 39–40. We agree with Patent Owner that the portion of Hu cited in the Petition and Dr. Raghunathan’s declaration does not teach using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down the L1 cache, as Petitioner contends. See PO Sur-reply 16–18; Pet. 39–41; Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 97– 99. Rather, Hu discloses determining values of the normalized cache leakage energy for different decay intervals at four values of the L2Access:leak ratio—5, 10, 20, and 100. Ex. 1104, 175–76; see PO Sur-reply 17. Hu uses these assumed values of the L2Access:leak ratio as inputs to generate simulation data, not to determine whether to power down a cache or portion of a cache. Ex. 1104, 175, see PO Resp. 24; PO Sur-Reply 15–16. Petitioner argues that Hu teaches that the higher the L2Access:leak ratio, the longer the system should wait before powering down the cache. Pet. 39–41; Pet. Reply 16–17. Hu, however, does not expressly compare the effect of different L2Access:leak ratios other than to state that when the L2Access:leak ratio is 100, a small decay interval is detrimental to performance and power. Ex. 1104, 175. As Patent Owner correctly asserts, Hu does not describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine an appropriate decay interval, nor does Hu describe using the L2Access:leak ratio to determine whether to power down a portion of a cache. See PO Sur-Reply 17–18.” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS 8,020,014 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,020,014 - Everstar Merchandise Co. Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co. Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2020 · PGR2019-00055 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that claims 1–10 were more likely than not unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). We may not institute a post-grant review unless “the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“the invention “would have had at least a Bachelor of Science degree (or equivalent) in Electrical Engineering, or a comparable field, and at least five years of experience in the fields of design of electrical wiring and/or decorative lighting.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 21). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s proposed definition recites an unnecessarily high level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 21. Patent Owner contends that the appropriate level of ordinary skill “would have been (1) a technician with at least two years of experience in the design of electrical wiring and/or decorative lighting, or (2) a person with at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and a basic familiarity with circuits used in decorative lighting.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 14–15). At this stage in the proceeding, we determine that the current record supports Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. For purposes of this Decision, therefore, we adopt Patent Owner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan.7 We also note that the applied prior art reflects the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party offers any proposed constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 8–9; Prelim. Resp. 20. Specifically, Petitioner indicates, “no terms require a specific construction, as they would be readily understandable to a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. 9 (citing Ex 1009 ¶ 22). Patent Owner also indicates, for purpose of its Preliminary Response, that no claim construction is necessary at this stage, but reserves the right to propose constructions should trial be instituted. Prelim. Resp. 20. On this record and for purposes of this decision, we determine that no claim term requires express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“gauge of Sylvania’s net lights. Prelim. Resp. 24. Petitioner provides Exhibit 1007, which is a series of photographs of the Sylvania net lights, its packaging, and its inserts from the box. See Ex. 1007; see also Ex. 1010 ¶ 7 (describing Ex. 1007 as “a collection of photographs”). Petitioner also submitted Exhibit 1010, which is a declaration from William Shelleman describing the purchase of Sylvania. See Ex. 1010. Finally, Dr. Fantone’s declaration includes a description of Sylvania. Ex. 1009 ¶ 28. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established the wire gauge of Sylvania’s net lights because none of these documents purport to indicate the gauge of the wires in Sylvania. Thus, the question is whether the recited wire gauge teaches the asserted combination.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,119,664 - Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 12, 2020 · IPR2018-01040 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach or support adding the separately claimed third voltage reference.
RulingsFinal written decision- Adverse judgmentDenied
“We agree with Patent Owner that we should not address the patentability of claim 9 in this Decision. See PO Resp. 63–64. Rather, following Federal Circuit case law, we treat claim 9 as if it never existed. See Gunn v. Kopf, 96 F.3d 1419, 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“A statutory disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253 has the effect of canceling the claims from the patent and the patent is viewed as though the disclaimed claims had never existed in the patent.”). Consistent with other Board decisions in which some, but not all, challenged claims have been disclaimed after institution, we address the patentability only of the remaining claims. See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00673, Paper 48 at 3 (PTAB Sept. 5, 2019) (Final Written Decision); Yamaha Golf Car, Paper 63 at 3; Baker Hughes, Paper 74 at 6, 11–12. We also agree with Patent Owner that we should not enter adverse judgment as to claim 9. See PO Sur-reply 26–27. Arthrex, the case relied on by Petitioner, does not mandate a different outcome. By its terms, 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(2) permits disclaimer to be construed as a request for adverse action when there are “no remaining claim[s] in the trial.” That was the situation in Arthrex. 880 F.3d at 1347 (“Arthrex, Inc. disclaimed all claims that were the subject of the petition.”). Here, in contrast, several claims remain in the trial. Furthermore, Arthrex does not support Petitioner’s patent are disclaimed.” Pet. Reply 27. The Arthrex language quoted by Petitioner compares disclaimer of an “entire patent” under § 42.73(b)(1) with disclaimer of “some of the claims” of the patent (i.e., fewer than all claims in the patent but all challenged claims so there are no remaining claims in the trial) under § 42.73(b)(2). 880 F.3d at 1350. Neither situation is present here when only one claim (claim 9) has been disclaimed and several challenged claims (claims 1–4, 10, 12, and 13) remain in the trial.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’207 patent “would have had at least a[n] M.S. degree in electrical engineering and would have at least two years of experience with circuit design.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the asserted prior art and adopted Petitioner’s position, which Patent Owner did not oppose in the Preliminary Response. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Ipek, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Dr. Ipek, however, states that “[f]or purposes of the subject IPR proceedings, I have been asked to employ [Petitioner’s proposed] standard of a person of ordinary skill, but I do not offer the opinion that it is the correct standard.” Ex. 2011 ¶ 19. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, because our preliminary determination is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one least an M.S. degree in electrical engineering and at least two years of experience with circuit design. See Inst. Dec. 14; Pet. 17.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the complete record developed during this inter partes review, we again conclude that the “third voltage reference” must be separate from the “second voltage reference.” We begin with the language of claim 1, which recites a first voltage reference, a second voltage reference, and a third voltage reference as separate elements.7 “Where a claim lists elements separately, ‘the clear implication of the claim language’ is that those elements are ‘distinct component[s]’ of the patented invention.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The terms “first,” “second,” and “third” are terms used to distinguish separate elements of a claim. See Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”). Although Gillette and 3M address whether such terms impose a numerical or serial limitation, they nevertheless support Patent Owner’s position that enumerated elements typically are not construed to be the same element. See Sur-reply 11–12. Other cases cited by Patent Owner also support its position. See id. at 12 (citing Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 935–39 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (construing “first” and “second” disks as separate and discrete disks); Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405) (Fed. Cir. 1996)” slip op. at 21
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“ordinary skill in the art would have sought to reduce power consumption in Takahashi to address the well-known problem of current leakage, and that providing a separate voltage reference for transistor 223 in Takahashi’s Figure 15 (i.e., a third voltage reference) would have achieved that goal. Pet. 34–35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). But the only evidence Petitioner relies on for adding the proposed third voltage reference is the testimony of Dr. Stojanovic. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 88). Without any additional supporting evidence, Dr. Stojanovic’s testimony is insufficient to supply the missing “third voltage reference,” which is a key limitation of claim 1. See K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019)9 (“[I]n an obviousness analysis, conclusory assertions from a third party about general knowledge in the art cannot, without supporting evidence of record, supply a limitation that is not evidently and indisputably within the common knowledge of those skilled in the art. . . . In other words, expert testimony may explain ‘patents and publications,’ but is not a substitute for disclosure in a prior art reference itself.” (citing K/S Himpp, 751 F.3d at 1365)); see also Inst. Dec. 30–31 (reaching the same conclusion on the preliminary record). Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,706,207 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,706,207
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.