- Netflix Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 17, 2024 · IPR2020-00646 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board held claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13–15, 18, and 21–23 unpatentable as obvious over Zetts and Kaku, with claims 5, 18, and 21 also obvious over Zetts, Kaku, and Seo.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for petitioner
“the Federal Circuit. Paper 49. On September 11, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating our Final Written Decision and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. Netflix, 80 F.4th at 1362. The Federal Circuit determined that we abused our discretion in finding that Petitioner had failed to articulate a field of endeavor. Id. at 1359. The Federal Circuit remanded to allow us to decide the “factual question of whether Kaku is directed to the same field of endeavor as the patent-in-suit.” Id. at 1361. The Federal Circuit, however, did not address the other three issues raised by Patent Owner since we did not decide those issues in the Final Written Decision and they were not presented for appeal. See generally Netflix.” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decision, we stated the following:” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has not shown that one of the prior art references is analogous to the claimed invention.” Final Dec. 9. On remand, the construction of this claim is an issue that must be decided to reach a conclusion on the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’792 patent.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“1. Analogous Art – Field of Endeavor Before turning to Petitioner’s analysis of the claims, we address” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,472,792 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,472,792 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00993 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–30, and 32 are unpatentable under § 103 based on Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzing the breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’994 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.18” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“D. Other Claim Terms The Parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms, and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the Parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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., 200 F.3d at 803)).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelOther
“G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Kirkness’s testimony, proposes that a” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32 and supported on the complete record before us, and, therefore, we adopt them as our own findings. See Pet. 66– 77. Accordingly, for the reasons explained by Petitioner, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the elements of claims 6, 7, 10–14, 19, 20, 23–26, 28–30, and 32.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 6,988,994 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,988,994 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 7, 2023 · IPR2022-00992 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1–5 and 7–14 over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460, and claim 6 over those references and Matthews.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“A. “troubled wakefulness” Petitioner proposes that we construe “troubled wakefulness” to mean” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’024 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, we find Petitioner has” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because it too is based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” which we do not adopt for the reasons explained above. Patent Owner’s additional arguments in response to Ground 2 are directed to motivation to combine, reasonable expectation of success, and objective indicia of nonobviousness, which we address below. For the reasons discussed above, we find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive as to claim 6 and supported on the complete record before us. Accordingly, we find that the combination of Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews satisfies the subject matter of claim 6.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 10,384,024 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,384,024 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00994 · APJ Alyssa A Finamore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, and 13 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995, Sullivan460, and Matthews; the Board did not reach the other grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citing Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 904 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F.3d at 1044.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). Petitioner further contends that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claim[s] would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 90). Patent Owner does not object to Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 11. Petitioner’s definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’344 patent and the prior art. We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill in the art in this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“At the outset, we agree with Petitioner that “enablement ‘is not a requirement to prove invalidity under § 103.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). Moreover, we also agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a preset level is established from previously-acquired data, such as an average level, as Sullivan995 discloses. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12; Ex. 2015, 38:2–16). Sullivan995 discloses the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The Board uses a two-step analysis in evaluating nexus between the claimed invention and objective evidence. Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 at 32–33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential), aff’d sub nom. Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., 2022 WL 499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022). We first consider whether the patent owner has demonstrated “that its products are coextensive (or nearly coextensive) with the challenged claims,” resulting in a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Id. at 32. If not, that “does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Id. at 33 (quoting Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75). “Where the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068–69 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). There is no requirement that the objective evidence of non-obviousness be tied exclusively to claim elements that are not disclosed in the prior art, and the claimed combination as a whole may serve as a nexus for the objective evidence. Id. (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 9,168,344 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,344 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00989 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–11, 13, and 15–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Sullivan995 and Sullivan460; anticipation was not shown, and the other obviousness ground was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, or a similar technical field, with at least two years of relevant product design experience” and “[a]dditional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Petitioner further states that the “Petition does not turn on this precise definition, and the challenged claims would be unpatentable from the perspective of any reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 78). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 15–16. We find that the ’539 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’539 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“awake state” Claim 24 recites, in part, “to determine whether breathing patterns indicate an asleep state or an awake state.” Ex. 1001, 11:36–12:7; see also id. at 9:49–64 (claim 1 reciting “between an awake state and an asleep state”), 10:42–56 (claim 11 reciting “at least one of an awake state or an asleep state”). In regard to its allegations of obviousness, Petitioner’s arguments suggest an “awake state” ordinarily means when a patient is not asleep. Pet. 36–37, 42. By contrast, with regard to its allegations of anticipation, Petitioner argues that under Patent Owner’s “implied construction of ‘an awake state’ based on [Patent Owner’s] infringement allegations” in district court, “the patient is in an awake state when there is an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” Id. at 68–70 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 2, 158, 159). Petitioner provides no further support for this “implied construction” purportedly taken from Patent Owner’s district court allegations. Id. Dr. Kirkness, in support of Petitioner, applied the plain meaning of all terms and phrases. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. In regard to supporting Petitioner’s allegations of anticipation, Dr. Kirkness merely assumed Patent Owner’s purported district court claim construction “position to be true.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 253. In this proceeding Patent Owner does not propose an express meaning for “awake state.” See PO Resp. 29–33. More generally, Patent Owner states that the ’539 patent “teaches how to distinguish between an awake state and an asleep state.” Id. at 8. From the arguments of the Parties, we discern no dispute in this proceeding that a plain and ordinary meaning of an “awake state” is a state in which a patient is not asleep. See Ex. 1001, 3:1–5 (distinguishing between “a wake state” and “a sleep state”), 7:22–24 (describing an embodiment with a processing arrangement that “may determine whether the patient is in a sleep state or a wake state based on the breathing pattern”).8 We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “awake state” in this proceeding and further determine that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that an awake state means “an absence of obstructions or other breathing patterns indicative of sleep.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Next, we turn to the Specification. “While we read claims in view of the specification . . . we do not read limitations from the embodiments in the specification into the claims.” Hill-Rom Servs., 755 F. 3d at 1371 (citation omitted). “We depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of claim terms based on the specification in only two instances: lexicography and disavowal.” Id. In order for a patentee to act as its own lexicographer, the “patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning’” and “must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the terms.” Bradium Tech., 923 F. 3d at 1044. In this case, Patent Owner does not argue that it disavowed the full scope of the plain and ordinary meaning of claim 24, nor does Patent Owner argue that it explicitly defined “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. See, e.g., PO Resp. 29–32. We determine that there is no disavowal nor any explicit lexicographic definition of “analyzing the breathing patterns” in the Specification. Patent Owner instead relies on an “implied lexicography” theory as to why we should construe the phrase as Patent Owner proposes. PO Sur-reply 2, 6–7 (citing, inter alia, AstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). We disagree.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments—that Petitioner fails to show any motivation to combine and that Sullivan460 is not enabled— merely because Dr. Kirkness indicated in a deposition that he did not know how a preset level is calculated from a sentence in Sullivan460. As Petitioner explains, enablement “is not a requirement to prove invalidity under §103.” Amgen, 314 F.3d at 1357 (under §103, “a reference need not be enabled; it qualifies as a prior art, regardless, for whatever is disclosed therein”). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that the Challenged Claims do not require any preset level for a flow rate, and a person of ordinary skill “would have understood that a preset level is established from previously-acquired data or data from a previous window of time, such as an average level, for example, as taught in Sullivan995.” Pet. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2014, 38:2–16; Ex. 1005, 17:3–27, Fig. 12). Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s assertion is unsupported, and that “Petitioner is obligated to address this challenge, and failed to do so.” PO Sur-reply 18–19 (citing In re Morsa, 713 F.3d 104, 110 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive because they are supported by the asserted references. Sullivan995 discloses that the computing system may “calculate control values of patterns for each patient based on moving average values or such values or patterns will be pre-programmed into the computing system.” Ex. 1005, 17:14–18. According to Sullivan995, when “signals deviate from predetermined values or patterns the computer system generates a signal which is sent to the feedback speed controller on the blower motor.” Id. at 17:19–22. Based on this disclosure, and given that Sullivan460 incorporates Sullivan995 by reference, we agree with Petitioner that Sullivan460’s disclosure of detecting that the flow rate has fallen below a preset level would have informed a person of ordinary skill that this level was predetermined, so that “the controller 100 activates the nCPAP apparatus 90 to supply air to the patient 30 at a pressure which ameliorates or eliminates the upper airway flow limitation.”16 Ex. 1006, 10:17–21.” slip op. at 50
Patent outcomesUS 9,427,539 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,427,539 - Resmed, Inc. v. New York UniversityAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2022-00988 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence, based on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“ORDER21 Upon consideration of the record before us, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 45) is denied; FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 46) is denied;” slip op. at 82
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“1. “troubled wakefulness” Dependent claims 12 and 22 each recite, “wherein the awake state is a” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“not implicitly define the phrase “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns,” as proposed, because Patent Owner has failed to show any sufficient evidence that the ’009 patent clearly expresses an intent to redefine the phrase or define the phrase in terms other than its plain and ordinary meaning. In other words, implied lexicography does not apply here. Accordingly, after reviewing Patent Owner’s contentions in light of all the evidence of record, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction; instead, we apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “analyzes the data to determine the patient’s breathing patterns” in our consideration of the issues before us.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,108,009 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,108,009 - Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00366 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the Shaffer-based and Chen-based grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We do not read the specification’s disclosure of alternative embodiments as establishing that the claimed “request” mandates deciding whether to act on the request. Nothing in the specification describes a request that itself requires independent assessment. Stated otherwise, although any given “request” could be evaluated to determine what, if any, action to take in response, any such evaluation does not depend on the nature of the request. The claims do not include language restricting how a request is processed, but instead read on systems or methods in which a certain 7 As noted, Patent Owner hinges its arguments on construing “request.” See Tr. 50:16–18. Independent claim 14’s programmable clock controller includes instructions to perform a method that, like claim 1’s method, receives the request provided by the first master device and provides the claimed outputs without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. Independent claim 18 similarly recites that a clock controller coupled to an arbiter is configured to adjust a variable clock frequency of the bus in response to receiving the request from the first master device, without reciting any intervening assessment of the request. specification is consistent with a system that makes no independent assessment of a request. The example states that “[t]he clock controller can output a variable clock frequency that varies in response to one or more inputs from the at least one master device.” Id. at 2:38–40. This exemplary embodiment supports Petitioner’s contention that we should not construe “request” as requiring independent assessment before acting on the request.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“While Chen does not expressly disclose power savings, the record supports a finding that skilled artisans would have understood power savings as an important consideration. See Ex. 1056, 386:2–4 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testifying in the litigation that “power savings in designing a processor” is “extremely important”). Indeed, Terrell discloses the minimum frequency that allows the processing elements to function correctly while using the least amount of power.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. We conclude therefore that the prospect of achieving power savings would have motivated skilled artisans to operate Chen’s system at a reduced clock frequency when not required by performance demands. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to improve technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’” (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). Patent Owner contends that Chen and Terrell have opposite goals because Chen focuses on increasing frequency for performance while Terrell focuses on reducing frequency for power savings. PO Resp. 32–37. Petitioner, however, explains how the teachings would work together to “select a clock frequency that increases the devices’ frequency only when needed, to reduce power consumption, even if the devices can use higher speeds.” Pet. 45. Such a combination is consistent with Chen’s teachings of increasing frequency for certain operations, and also consistent with Terrell’s teachings of reducing frequency when possible. In this way, we credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that the combination would have balanced “the inherent trade-off between highest performance at the highest cost, and lower (but perhaps still acceptable) performance at a lower cost.” Ex. 1055 ¶ 112. Thus, the combined system Petitioner asserts would have been able to operate at reduced frequency (conserving power) in low-activity times and increased frequency when the system required higher performance. Id. ¶ 117. performance demand, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the combination defeats Chen’s intended purpose. See PO Resp. 37–42. Patent Owner’s interpretation, that Chen requires maximum speed at all times, is implausible in light of Terrell’s recognition that systems may spend time in an idle state (Ex. 1004 ¶ 54), and Chen’s disclosure of operating devices below their maximum speed (Ex. 1003, 3:42–43 (“I/O devices which normally operate at 66 M[H]z can be operated at 50 M[H]z.”)). We conclude that Chen’s “principle of operation and stated goal” are preserved by the asserted combination, in which bus speed is reduced when performance needs allow and then increased to the limit of a device’s capabilities when required.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“The IEEE article cited by Patent Owner is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the requisite nexus. Intel’s employee testified that it takes years and thousands of engineers to build a new generation of processors because such devices include thousands of features and enhancements. Ex. 1058, 811:2–12. Petitioner notes that Patent Owner accused only the Speed Shift feature of infringing the ’759 patent and that Patent Owner’s damages expert, Dr. Sullivan, “conceded that many of the thousands of other features ‘have nothing to do with what [Patent Owner] accuses.’” Pet. Reply 23 (quoting Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24). Petitioner additionally points out that, in a subsequent trial, Patent Owner’s expert agreed that Intel would have sold the accused products regardless of the alleged infringement. Id. (citing Ex. 1061, 771:13–22 (testifying that Intel would have made the same sales, even if the jury found the products not to infringe)). The record before us does not show that Intel’s product or products underlying the infringement verdict are coextensive with “the invention disclosed and claimed.” See Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373, 1377; see Facebook, Inc. v. Express Mobile Inc., IPR2021-01457 Paper 38 at 76–80 (PTAB March 14, 2023) (concluding an infringement verdict was insufficient to establish nexus). Rather, the record shows that the accused products contained many features beyond those relevant to the ’749 patent. Ex. 1057, 690:19–691:24; Ex. 1058, 815:16–816:21. information that would allow us to weigh the extent of Intel’s commercial success based on the alleged sales of products infringing the claimed invention. In particular, the record does not reflect whether the infringing device represented an increase in market share over a prior, noninfringing device or any other aspect that would allow us to place the verdict’s amount in context. See, e.g., In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“An important component of the commercial success inquiry in the present case is determining whether Applied had a significant market share.”). On this record we do not find evidence of commercial success sufficient for purposes of establishing non-obviousness.” slip op. at 25
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner and deny Patent Owner’s motion because Dr. Jacob’s cross-examination and his confirmation of the declarations in this proceeding address Patent Owner’s hearsay concern.11 IPR testimony is 10 Petitioner does not dispute that Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations are offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” PO Mtn. Exclude 3; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). 11 Patent Owner’s argument that OpenSky did not contact Dr. Jacob before filing its Petition with Dr. Jacob’s Declarations is not persuasive in light of his willingness to testify in this proceeding. PO Mtn. Exclude 6–10. not allow an expert to “testify” in person at an IPR hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (a)–(b)(1); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 35 U.S.C. § 23. Testimony is instead submitted as evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.63. Our rules, therefore, contemplate that declarants in IPRs do not “testify” in the traditional sense of giving live testimony in a courtroom. As other Board decisions have noted, “[w]ithout exception, the Board accepts the filing of sworn witness declarations in lieu of live testimony in administrative patent trials.” Grünenthal Gmbh v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00062, Paper 32 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019). Our procedures adopt that practice for its efficiency and ensure fairness by allowing cross-examination. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). Dr. Jacob has made himself available for cross-examination and confirmed that the declarations express his opinions here, in this proceeding. Thus, in these respects, the Original Declarations are no different than the other testimony relied on by the parties, and are not hearsay subject to exclusion.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,725,759 - Intel Corporation / Opensky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2021-01064 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22, and 24 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted Shaffer- and Chen-based grounds; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We do not read the specification’s disclosure of alternative embodiments as establishing that the claimed “request” mandates deciding whether to act on the request. Nothing in the specification describes a request that itself requires independent assessment. Stated otherwise, although any given “request” could be evaluated to determine what, if any, action to take in response, any such evaluation does not depend on the nature of the request. The claims do not include language restricting how a request is processed, but instead read on systems or methods in which a certain” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“While Chen does not expressly disclose power savings, the record supports a finding that skilled artisans would have understood power savings as an important consideration. See Ex. 1056, 386:2–4 (Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Conte, testifying in the litigation that “power savings in designing a processor” is “extremely important”). Indeed, Terrell discloses the minimum frequency that allows the processing elements to function correctly while using the least amount of power.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. We conclude therefore that the prospect of achieving power savings would have motivated skilled artisans to operate Chen’s system at a reduced clock frequency when not required by performance demands. See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“‘[U]niversal’ motivations known in a particular field to improve technology provide ‘a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’” (quoting Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 797–99 (Fed. Cir. 2021))). Patent Owner contends that Chen and Terrell have opposite goals because Chen focuses on increasing frequency for performance while Terrell focuses on reducing frequency for power savings. PO Resp. 32–37. Petitioner, however, explains how the teachings would work together to “select a clock frequency that increases the devices’ frequency only when needed, to reduce power consumption, even if the devices can use higher speeds.” Pet. 45. Such a combination is consistent with Chen’s teachings of increasing frequency for certain operations, and also consistent with Terrell’s teachings of reducing frequency when possible. In this way, we credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that the combination would have balanced “the inherent trade-off between highest performance at the highest cost, and lower (but perhaps still acceptable) performance at a lower cost.” Ex. 1055 ¶ 112. Thus, the combined system Petitioner asserts would have been able to operate at reduced frequency (conserving power) in low-activity times and increased frequency when the system required higher performance. Id. ¶ 117. performance demand, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the combination defeats Chen’s intended purpose. See PO Resp. 37–42. Patent Owner’s interpretation, that Chen requires maximum speed at all times, is implausible in light of Terrell’s recognition that systems may spend time in an idle state (Ex. 1004 ¶ 54), and Chen’s disclosure of operating devices below their maximum speed (Ex. 1003, 3:42–43 (“I/O devices which normally operate at 66 M[H]z can be operated at 50 M[H]z.”)). We conclude that Chen’s “principle of operation and stated goal” are preserved by the asserted combination, in which bus speed is reduced when performance needs allow and then increased to the limit of a device’s capabilities when required. Patent Owner argues additionally that the asserted combination would have required modifying devices to support reduced speed, and that the required modifications would increase cost and complexity such that skilled artisans would not have made the combination. PO Resp. 42–47. Petitioner responds, on the other hand, that devices with thousands of transistors were commonplace at the time of the ’759 patent’s invention. Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 118–119). We agree with Petitioner that the added complexity required by the asserted combination would not have risen to a level that skilled artisans would have been dissuaded from making the combination. In particular, we agree that, by 2005, when the application resulting in the ’759 patent was filed, Terrell’s approach did not present a significant technological obstacle to a skilled artisan seeking to modify Chen’s system. See Pet. Reply 18. We credit Dr. Jacob’s testimony that technology had advanced considerably following Chen’s mid-1990s disclosure such that the modification would have imposed a modest likewise would minimize any challenge skilled artisans would have had with modifying Chen’s master devices. See PO Resp. 42–43. Those devices would have required only modest changes to work with the modified system, and skilled artisans implementing Chen’s system in 2005 would have done so with integrated devices, thus eliminating Patent Owner’s asserted need to modify a host of disparate devices. See Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 119, 132–137. Patent Owner further challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Terrell’s statement that its teachings apply to “[a]n on-chip bus that hosts two or more bus masters, all of which share a common bus clock.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 6, 8; PO Resp. 47–48 (citing Pet. 46). Patent Owner points out that Chen’s bus 40 is a peripheral, off-chip bus and implicates different design constraints. Id. Petitioner contends that, regardless of whether Chen’s bus is itself an on-chip bus, technological progression after Chen resulted in master devices moving on-chip and using an on-chip bus. Pet. Reply 19 (citing Ex. 1055 ¶¶ 132–137). Notwithstanding Dr. Jacob’s testimony that Chen’s system would be implemented differently by the time of the ’759 patent, the dispute does not change our determination because, as discussed above, Petitioner has shown that skilled artisans would have made the asserted combination, aside from Terrell’s statement about on-chip buses. Terrell’s statement of particular applicability to on-chip buses does not undermine its separate statement regarding the desirability of reducing power consumption by reducing clock frequency when possible. Ex. 1004 ¶ 5. That express teaching shows that skilled artisans understood the possibility of reducing power by reducing frequency. We conclude that skilled artisans had reason to arrive at the asserted combination.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“When the evidence shows that a product includes “the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent,” we presume that any commercial success of the product is due to the patented invention. PPC Broadband v. Corning Optical Commc’ns, 815 F. 3d 734, 746–747 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Such claims, but also that it is coextensive with them. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[P]resuming nexus is appropriate ‘when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).” slip op. at 23
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“We agree with Petitioner and deny Patent Owner’s motion because Dr. Jacob’s cross-examination and his confirmation of the declarations in this proceeding address Patent Owner’s hearsay concern.11 IPR testimony is 10 Petitioner does not dispute that Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations are offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” PO Mtn. Exclude 3; Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2). 11 Patent Owner’s argument that OpenSky did not contact Dr. Jacob before filing its Petition with Dr. Jacob’s Declarations is not persuasive in light of his willingness to testify in this proceeding. PO Mtn. Exclude 6–10. not allow an expert to “testify” in person at an IPR hearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.53 (a)–(b)(1); 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 35 U.S.C. § 23. Testimony is instead submitted as evidence in the form of affidavits and deposition transcripts. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.53, 42.63. Our rules, therefore, contemplate that declarants in IPRs do not “testify” in the traditional sense of giving live testimony in a courtroom. As other Board decisions have noted, “[w]ithout exception, the Board accepts the filing of sworn witness declarations in lieu of live testimony in administrative patent trials.” Grünenthal Gmbh v. Antecip Bioventures II LLC, PGR2018-00062, Paper 32 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 29, 2019). Our procedures adopt that practice for its efficiency and ensure fairness by allowing cross-examination. See id.; 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(ii). Dr. Jacob has made himself available for cross-examination and confirmed that the declarations express his opinions here, in this proceeding. Thus, in these respects, the Original Declarations are no different than the other testimony relied on by the parties, and are not hearsay subject to exclusion. Indeed, during his cross-examination, Dr. Jacob confirmed that the Original Declarations set forth his opinions regarding the ’759 patent. Ex. 2066, 69:12–17 (identifying Ex. 1002), 72:11–21 (identifying Ex. 1046), 73:4–10 (confirming the declarations set forth his opinions). In Intel’s proceeding asserting the same grounds and seeking joinder, Dr. Jacob filed a declaration reaffirming his Original Declarations and confirming that he would appear for cross-examination. IPR2022-00366, Ex. 1049. We noted that Dr. Jacob’s reaffirming declaration and availability for cross-examination allayed concerns about hearsay. Paper 43 (joinder decision), 15. While the reaffirming declaration is not of record in this proceeding, opinions serve the same role. Patent Owner has suffered no prejudice from Dr. Jacob’s Original Declarations. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments (Paper 95) and find them just as unavailing. The fact that the Jacob declarations were prepared for another proceeding is immaterial in this case because Dr, Jacob has expressly adopted them for this proceeding. Id. at 1–3. Nor is a hearsay exception necessary, as the reaffirmance of the prior testimony by Dr. Jacob and his cross-examination in this proceeding overcomes any plausible hearsay argument or the necessity for a hearsay exception. Id. at 3–5. Finally, there is no merit to Patent Owner’s suggestion (id. at 5) that reliance on Dr. Jacob’s reply declaration is somehow contrary to our procedures, which specifically provide for replies by the petitioner (including new declarations). See USPTO Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 73 (Nov. 2019).12 For the reasons given, we deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude.” slip op. at 41
Patent outcomesUS 7,725,759 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,725,759 - Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01601 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable as obvious over both listed combinations; the contingent motion to amend is granted, replacing them with substitute claims 3 and 4.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated we would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner. Institution Dec. 19. We reasoned that our review of the ’199 patent and the cited prior art did not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’199 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. at 19– 20. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and therefore, we concluded that our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 20.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“device associated with a driver at all.” PO Resp. 39 (citing Valenti III Decl. ¶ 94). Patent Owner continues, “Petitioner’s expert acknowledges that Lalancette does not disclose the use of a mobile communication device associated with the driver.” Id. (citing Williams Dep. 128:14–129:25, 132:1–8). This is a misrepresentation of Mr. Williams’s testimony. He was not asked whether Lalancette “discloses” a mobile communication device; he was asked to agree whether Lalancette “identi[fies] the mobile computer as a mobile communication device.” Williams Dep 129:10–13. He explained his response later in his testimony: “In the passage where [Lalancette] references mobile computer, it doesn’t have a specific form factor discussion such as referencing Smartphones.” Id. at 132:5–8. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that this limitation is not met by Lalancette and we do not find the testimony of its expert, Dr. Valenti, credible or helpful. See Valenti III Decl. ¶¶ 94 (“Lalancette does not disclose a mobile device associated with a driver at all.”). As Petitioner points out, the argument supported by Dr. Valenti is an “attempt to improperly narrow the definition of a mobile device to only mean a smartphone of the driver.” Pet. Reply 24. We find that this argument and the supporting expert testimony are contradicted by the ’199 patent specification. See id, at 24–25 (quoting Ex. 1001, 3:10–11, defining mobile communication device broadly). We, therefore, find that the mobile computer disclosed in Lalancette meets the requirement of this claim limitation for a “mobile communication device associated with the driver.” We find for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates that Lalancette and Kemler meet limitation 1E.” slip op. at 45
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We declined to adopt this implicit construction (and the related construction “actively generate”). Institution Dec. 23. The claims themselves do not require the controller to “actively formulate” a new indicator for the same rider requesting a subsequent trip for that second trip, or that “a new signal be actively formulated each time a ride is dispatched,” as Patent Owner’s analysis asserts. See infra. Nor is it clear how this construction is supported by the ’199 patent specification. The ’199 patent describes the controller as “communicatively coupled to the transceiver.” Ex. 1001, 2:10–11. Further, “[t]he controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device.” Id. at 2:12–14. Elsewhere in the patent, “controller” is defined as “any type of computing device, computational circuit, or any type of processor or processing circuit capable of executing a series of instructions that are stored in a memory associated with a with the controller.” Id. at 3:6–10. The operation of the controller is also described as follows: “The controller 110 may generate a first signal (also referred to herein as a ‘notification signal’) that is transmitted via the transceiver 120 to the mobile communication device 150 associated with the driver D.” Id. at 5:14–17. Still further, “[t]he controller 110 generates four different notification signals, NOTIFICATION-A, NOTIFICATION-B, NOTIFICATION-C, and NOTIFICATION-D, to be transmitted by the transceiver 120 to a first DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150A, a second DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150B, a third DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150C, and a fourth DRIVER'S MOBILE DEVICE 150D, respectively.” Id. at 6:39–46. And further, “[i]n other embodiments, wherein the vehicle identification system 11 is utilized, an indicatory signal to the rider's mobile communication device may be generated by the controller 110.” Id. at 7:4–7. In none of these descriptions of the controller’s operation is there” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–25. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-demand service system can also use location information from the driver’s device and/or transport information . . . to automatically determine the driver’s state or state of the transport service.” Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 29, 35). Petitioner explains that in Kalanick, “[w]hen a service application on the driver’s device determines that the transport service is to change state, such as to ‘arriving now,’ based on a determination that the driver is within a predetermined distance, the service application can trigger the indication device to output the user’s specific color.” Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 37). Thus, Kalanick’s system can “control the indication device to output the user’s color or other unique distinctive indicator based on the transport state.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, ¶ 38). Petitioner explains that Kemler describes a central dispatching system in which one or more server computing devices of the centralized dispatching system may select a vehicle to be dispatched based upon the location of the client computing device. Id, (citing Ex. 1008, 10:3–33). Thus, Petitioner explains that Kemler, like Kalanick, “discloses ride-matching based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. Petitioner demonstrates that “a [person of ordinary skill] would find it obvious to modify Kalanick’s vehicle identification system in view of Kemler, at least because both systems disclose substantially similar ride-matching techniques based on proximity and distance to match requesting riders with drivers based at least in part on the proximity of their respective locations.” Id. at 23–24. Petitioner also explains that a person of ordinary skill would “anticipate success of such a modification.” Id. at 24. Petitioner explains that “the controller in Kalanick is already in communication with the car and could easily send a signal to activate the display with the unique code.” Id. (citing Williams I Decl. ¶ 121). Petitioner recognizes that although both Kalanick and Kemler “focus” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,559,199 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,559,199 - Lyft, Inc. v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 10, 2023 · IPR2021-01598 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 11–20 are unpatentable as obvious over either asserted combination; the motion to amend is granted for substitute claims 29, 31, and 32.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 5. At the institution stage, we adopted Petitioner’s more general formulation, with a qualification. We stated “[w]e would also expect a person of ordinary skill to also have at least some experience in wireless cellular network protocols, as suggested by Patent Owner.” Institution Dec. 16. We reasoned that our review of the ’637 patent and the cited prior art does not suggest that specific experience with data privacy policies and protection models would be required, given the focus of the ’637 patent on more general principles of cellular communications and signaling. Id. However, we observed that the arguments presented by the parties did not depend on the definition of the person or ordinary skill, and, therefore, our decision would be the same under either formulation. Id. at 16–17.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Resp. 12–14. The fact that Kalanick may not “disclose any problem” arising from the possibility of two passengers in the same area having the same signal does not prove a problem did not exist or that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to improve upon the solution for it. See Pet. Reply 5–6. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that there would be no reasonable expectation of success based on Kemler’s disclosure of a server farm. PO Resp. 24 (“The immense expense and complexity of operating a server ‘farm’ would be a reason to avoid Kemler’s teachings.”). Testimony from Mr. Williams establishes the advantages of such systems. Pet. Reply 7 (citing Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 124); Williams Dep. 82:1–88:25, 92:13–93:1; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 34–35.5” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that the Petition and supporting expert testimony sufficiently demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of Kemler and Kalanick with a reasonable expectation of success. Pet. 21–27; Williams I Decl. ¶¶ 113–125; Williams III Decl. ¶¶ 5–17. In addition to the reasons given supra, Petitioner explains that Kalanick’s “on-” slip op. at 30
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“The ’637 patent describes an indicator as “a ‘code’ (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, on the display 130 and on a mobile communication device 140 associated with the user P to enable the user P to identify the vehicle that he/she has requested for a ride service.” Ex. 1001, 4:6–10. Consistent with this description in the specification, we construed the term “indicator” as a code (e.g., a text string or an alphanumeric string), an icon, or other identifier, for display to enable a match between a user/rider and a driver. Institution Dec. 20. We did not see a basis in the claims or specification for Patent Owner’s contention that a “new unique indicator” must be “actively formulate[d] . . . for each rider-driver trip while the driver is in transit.” Id. at 20 (citing Prelim. Resp. 29). Patent Owner does not address the construction of “indicator” in its Response. For the reasons given, therefore, we maintain our construction of this term. We discuss Patent Owner’s contention that a new indicator must be “actively formulated” further in connection with our consideration of the claim term “generate,” infra.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,892,637 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,892,637
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.