- Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 14, 2023 · IPR2022-01009 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Littleworth, Linder, and Middlebrook.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we find that Petitioner has made a” slip op. at 57
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“support the conclusion that Linder has no applicability to Littleworth. For example, Dr. Bajaj references Linder’s example on page 11 of a series of images taken by an airplane and “photographed strip by strip, turning around the aircraft after every strip, so that the strips are taken in a meander-like sequence.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 65, 67 (citing Ex. 1012, 10–11). Dr. Bajaj points to Linder’s statement that “[t]he two images of each model have a longitudinal overlap of approximately 60 to 80%,” “neighbouring strips have a lateral overlap of normally about 30%,” and that “this is not only necessary for stereoscopic viewing but also for the connecting of all images of a block within an aerial triangulation.” Id. This portion of Linder, however, is only an example, and merely illustrates that there needs to be a certain amount of overlap between the images in order to correlate them. It is consistent with Littleworth, which also contemplates that the overlapping images are correlated by identifying and coordinating “suitable control points” among the images “to create the three-dimensional model.” Ex. 1005, 755–756; see Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 34–35, 37.” slip op. at 54
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artUnpatentable
“support the conclusion that Linder has no applicability to Littleworth. For example, Dr. Bajaj references Linder’s example on page 11 of a series of images taken by an airplane and “photographed strip by strip, turning around the aircraft after every strip, so that the strips are taken in a meander-like sequence.” Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 65, 67 (citing Ex. 1012, 10–11). Dr. Bajaj points to Linder’s statement that “[t]he two images of each model have a longitudinal overlap of approximately 60 to 80%,” “neighbouring strips have a lateral overlap of normally about 30%,” and that “this is not only necessary for stereoscopic viewing but also for the connecting of all images of a block within an aerial triangulation.” Id. This portion of Linder, however, is only an example, and merely illustrates that there needs to be a certain amount of overlap between the images in order to correlate them. It is consistent with Littleworth, which also contemplates that the overlapping images are correlated by identifying and coordinating “suitable control points” among the images “to create the three-dimensional model.” Ex. 1005, 755–756; see Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 34–35, 37.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 8,670,961 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,670,961 - Uv Engineering Solutions LLC v. Trojan Technologies Group UlcInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2023 · IPR2023-01015 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–5 and 8–24 were unpatentable over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2022).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The primary dispute between the parties is whether the person having ordinary skill in the art works with lamps generally (Petitioner) or works with ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (Patent Owner). Although the specification of the ’654 patent focuses on ultraviolet lamps for fluid treatment systems (see Ex. 1001, 1:24–2:29), the claims of the patent are not so limited. Rather, the claims broadly claim “lamps” without reciting any field of use. See id. at 6:2–8:24. Because the claims are not limited to ultraviolet lamps or fluid treatment centers, Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill is more consistent with the claims. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed description of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Because construction of the disputed claim limitation is not necessary to resolve the controversy, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner to be angled relative to the longitudinal axis as shown in Titchener so as to create a reliable connection between cables as disclosed in Titchener.” Pet. 12. Petitioner further argues that “[s]uch a modification would be a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., angled connectors 5a and 5b of Titchener) for another (i.e., non-angled terminal pins 126, 128, 130, and 132 of Ellner) to obtain predictable results.” Id. at 12–13. According to Petitioner, the combination of the teachings of Ellner and Titchener result in a lamp in which “each of the first elongate electrical connector (i.e., terminal pin 126, 128 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) and the second elongate connector (i.e., terminal pin 130, 132 modified to be angled as shown in Titchener) configured to form an oblique angle with respect to the longitudinal axis.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,167,654 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00969 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21–23, and 27, finding Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We do not see compelling evidence from Petitioner that the extracting/parsing data limitation is taught or suggested by Bossemeyer. As discussed supra, in Section II.C, the ’987 patent discloses extraction occurring as an initial step in which a filter removes or extracts security-sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. See Ex. 1001, 19:45–49, Fig. 1A. In contrast, Bossemeyer discloses a “partitioned” memory (see Fig. 3, reproduced supra in Section II.E.1), but does not disclose extracting, i.e., filtering or separating, security sensitive information from source data to obtain extracted data and remainder data. See Easttom Decl. ¶ 29 (“Bossemeyer is entirely silent as to where the information stored in the central server comes from, the form it takes before it gets to the central database server, or how the different pieces of information end up in the different partitioned areas of memory.”). Petitioner points to no disclosure or suggestion that the “proprietary” and “limited access” information in Bossemeyer’s database has been filtered or separated from the “public” information, so as to result in “extracted data” and “remainder data,” as recited in the challenged claims.” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 24 (“Bossemeyer partitions or separates (e.g., extracts), user data into subsets of extracted data, e.g., limited access information and/or proprietary information, and remainder data, e.g., public information.”) (emphases and color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id. Petitioner argues that, to the extent Bossemeyer does not explicitly disclose “extracting data,” a person of ordinary skill would have understood that, when Bossemeyer’s central data base server “partitions” user information in terms of accessibility, Bossemeyer teaches “separating sensitive information from user data.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:17–20). We find the reference in Bossemeyer to “partitions” is not a compelling disclosure of extracting, e.g., filtering or removing, security sensitive data from a data object prior to storage. We agree, instead, with Dr. Easttom, that this disclosure in Bossemeyer is “merely referring to the act by the memory partitions of keeping different pieces of information separate from each other, not removing some pieces of data from a larger whole.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 32. He concludes that “[a person of ordinary skill] would have understood that the extracting/parsing process of the ’987 Patent is vastly different than the act of ‘partitioning’ either as used in Bossemeyer or as used in the art at the time.’” Id. ¶ 34.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,349,987 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2023-00971 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020 00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review (also “IPR”) unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Dr. Zadok’s testimony provides compelling evidence that this limitation is met by Bossemeyer. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 194–211. We agree with Patent Owner that much of Dr. Zadok’s testimony is based on assumptions that he does not support with facts. Prelim. Resp. 34–41. For example, he testifies, without factual support, that “[t]he system of Bossemeyer retrieves remainder data (e.g., public information such as a customer’s name), retrieve [sic] extracted data (e.g., proprietary or limited access information such as credit card numbers and account PIN/numbers), and then logically merges these pieces of information (i.e., reconstruct the original information to appear as before it was split into different security categories).” Ex. 1003 ¶ 207 (emphases and color coding omitted). Dr. Zadok provides no citation to Bossemeyer, and we see no disclosure that Bossemeyer’s system “logically merges” public information, such as a customer’s name, with proprietary or limited access information, such as credit card numbers and account PIN/numbers. Id. Dr. Zadok even admits that “Bossemeyer does not explicitly state that the ¶ 208. Nevertheless, he speculates (without support) that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that such logical merging would have been obvious to take place for the (secure) transaction to succeed.” Id. Similarly, we are not persuaded by Dr. Zadok’s testimony, referring to an example from Bossemeyer involving access to medical data (Ex. 1005, 5:6–15), that “Bossemeyer discloses permitting reconstruction of some of a user’s medical data (e.g., data including the user’s medical alerts 212, and insurance and prescription information 214) and permitting reconstruction of all of user’s data (e.g., data further including the user’s medical history 216) with additional authorization.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 210 (emphases and color highlighting omitted). We find that Dr. Zadok’s testimony is speculative, hindsight-biased, and unsupported by Bossemeyer, which does not disclose or suggest any such logical merging of data. See, e.g., Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that an articulated reasoning “is especially important to guard against the dangers of hindsight bias”). See Ex 2004 ¶¶ 47–56 (challenging Dr. Zadok’s assumption of merging data in Bossemeyer).” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill would have “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent, and approximately two years of experience “[l]ess professional experience can be substituted by additional education and vice versa. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 112–113). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,721,344 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digitaldoors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00967 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claim 81 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the Petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating these factors. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. We have considered the circumstances and facts before us in view of Fintiv factors 1–5. As discussed above, factors 1 and 3 are neutral, factors 2 and 5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial of institution, and factor 4 weighs marginally against discretionary denial. We, therefore, conclude that the evidence of record on factors 1–5 favors exercising our discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“compelling-merits question requires a higher standard of proof, ‘highly likely to prevail,’ than the statutory standard for institution, ‘reasonably likely to prevail.’” Prelim. Resp. 48. Patent Owner asserts that the Petition is deficient because Bossemeyer is not analogous art to the ’825 patent. Id. at 2, 16–23. Patent Owner contends also that Bossemeyer and Glick fail to teach the claimed “extracted data” and “reconstruction” claim elements discussed infra. Id. at 2, 23–41. Finally, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner fails to provide sufficient motivation to combine Bossemeyer and Glick. Id. at 42–47. slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“repeatedly refers to Bossemeyer’s “partitioned” database server and attempts to equate “partitioning” with “extraction.” See, e.g., Pet. 35 (“Specifically, in Bossemeyer, user data is partitioned, e.g., extracted, into limited access information and/or proprietary information, and public information.”) (color highlighting omitted). We do not find this argument compelling. We agree with Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Easttom, who testifies, “a partitioned memory does not imply or suggest extraction.” Easttom Decl. ¶ 29. As Dr. Easttom explains, a partitioned memory “merely refers to memory with different areas reserved for different types of information.” Id.” slip op. at 21
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. The “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). construction (Pet. 11) and Patent Owner’s choice not to state its position on claim construction. We determine we need not expressly construe any claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,313,825 - International Business Machines Corporation v. Digital Doors, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 1, 2023 · IPR2023-00968 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 10, 15, 16, 19, 33, 34, 42, 47, 48, and 51, citing Fintiv and finding no compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the most recent time- to-trial statistics and the schedule set by Judge Gilstrap. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument based on out-of-date data. We find that this factor favors exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo at 4. The Guidance Memo does not change the statutory standard for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Instead, a determination of compelling merits will outweigh the other Fintiv factors, and such challenges will be allowed to proceed even if a district court litigation is proceeding in parallel. Id.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Guidance Memo, 4. For the reasons given, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not present a “compelling, meritorious challenge.” In view of this determination, we do not need to address Patent ’047 patent or that there is insufficient motivation to combine Bossemeyer and Merenda.” slip op. at 27
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,322,047 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2023-00384 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12 are unpatentable under § 103 over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher; the Board did not reach the alternative ground adding Tittel.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“1 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC, Inc. filed a motion for joinder and a petition in IPR2023-00384, which were granted. Accordingly, Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC have been joined as a petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 1
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Claim 9 recites “automatically with the BT computer system” and does not otherwise recite or require the acts recited in the claims that follow, such as “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a website . . .” to be performed in whole or part by the BT computer system. Accordingly, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not further explicitly construe “automatically with the BT computer system” to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“provide support for its construction, we do not agree that the proposed construction for “profile information” “derives directly from the specification of the ’615 Patent.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction has a broader in scope than the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures cited by Patent Owner as support. Without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed property” and “demographic information about a visitor to a media property” (PO Resp. 7–8) (emphasis added), while the cited ’615 Patent Specification discloses that the “visitor’s profile “could be the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–44 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:16–21, 4:64–67. In other words, without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information” encompasses the observed behavior, in general, of a media property visitor and the demographic information, in general, about a media property visitor, and is therefore broader than the cited ’615 Patent Specification, which more narrowly discloses the visitor’s observed behavior on the media property and the visitor’s demographic information collected on the media property. Patent Owner does not direct us to disclosure in the ’615 Patent Specification to support the full scope of Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information.” In sum, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information,” because the broad scope of the proposed construction is not supported by Patent Owner’s citations to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosure. Consistent with the cited ’615 Patent Specification disclosures, we instead construe “profile information” as “the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property, or both.”8” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The language of claim 9 does not include limitations precluding the later occurring transfer of any profile information as a result of tagging the first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website. See Ex. 1001, 14:7–40. We also agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the language of claim 9, by use of the transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the occurrence of “transferring to the third party computer system any profile information” after the step of “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website, which occurs “at a first time.” See id. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’615 Patent Specification supports its construction. Although Patent Owner directs attention to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures that the BT computer company stores a visitor’s collected profile information and does not transfer it to the second media property, but asks the second media property to tag the visitor or arrange for a tag to be placed (see PO Resp. 10; Ex. 1001, 9:47–54), and further discloses that the BT company has no economic incentive to transfer profile information to the second media property (see PO Resp. 11; Ex. 1001, 9:54–65), these disclosures do not provide sufficient support for Patent Owner’s requirement that “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website” must not result in transfer of visitor profile information to the third party computer system. See PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,830,615 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,830,615 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Amazon.Com, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 28, 2023 · IPR2022-01064 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12 are unpatentable under §103 over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher; the Board did not reach the challenge adding Tittel.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Claim 9 recites “automatically with the BT computer system” and does not otherwise recite or require the acts recited in the claims that follow, such as “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a website . . .” to be performed in whole or part by the BT computer system. Accordingly, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “automatically with the BT computer system.” As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not further explicitly construe “automatically with the BT computer system” to resolve the controversy before us. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“property” and “demographic information about a visitor to a media property” (PO Resp. 7–8) (emphasis added), while the cited ’615 Patent Specification discloses that the “visitor’s profile “could be the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property.” Ex. 1001, 3:37–44 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:16–21, 4:64–67. In other words, without explanation, Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information” encompasses the observed behavior, in general, of a media property visitor and the demographic information, in general, about a media property visitor, and is therefore broader than the cited ’615 Patent Specification, which more narrowly discloses the visitor’s observed behavior on the media property and the visitor’s demographic information collected on the media property. Patent Owner does not direct us to disclosure in the ’615 Patent Specification to support the full scope of Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information.” In sum, based on the record evidence, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “profile information,” because the broad scope of the proposed construction is not supported by Patent Owner’s citations to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosure. Consistent with the cited ’615 Patent Specification disclosures, we instead construe “profile information” as “the observed behavior of the visitor on the media property, demographic information collected on the media property, or both.”8” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundNo construction neededDecided for petitioner
“system.” Under Phillips, the starting point for the analysis is the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. The language of claim 9 does not include limitations precluding the later occurring transfer of any profile information as a result of tagging the first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website. See Ex. 1001, 14:7–40. We also agree with Petitioner’s arguments that the language of claim 9, by use of the transitional phrase “comprising,” does not preclude the occurrence of “transferring to the third party computer system any profile information” after the step of “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website, which occurs “at a first time.” See id. We also do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the ’615 Patent Specification supports its construction. Although Patent Owner directs attention to the ’615 Patent Specification disclosures that the BT computer company stores a visitor’s collected profile information and does not transfer it to the second media property, but asks the second media property to tag the visitor or arrange for a tag to be placed (see PO Resp. 10; Ex. 1001, 9:47–54), and further discloses that the BT company has no economic incentive to transfer profile information to the second media property (see PO Resp. 11; Ex. 1001, 9:54–65), these disclosures do not provide sufficient support for Patent Owner’s requirement that “arranging for a third party computer system . . . to electronically tag a first computer of a first visitor visiting a first website” must not result in transfer of visitor profile information to the third party computer system. See PO Resp. 10–11.” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of network-based computer systems, such as systems for sending and receiving information over local networks and wide area networks (such as the Internet or World Wide Web). A person could also have qualified with more formal education and less technical experience, or vice versa. Petitioner’s definition, and does not offer an alternate definition. See PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’615 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,830,615 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,830,615 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 30, 2023 · IPR2022-00735 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable because the Snavely-based combinations did not teach a “primary oblique image” as construed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s construction of the term “primary oblique image” as “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” This construction is supported by the ’518 patent Specification, which includes a listing of “Terminology” that contains the following definition for the term “primary oblique image”: Primary oblique image—a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images. The primary oblique image can also be a master image. Ex. 1001, 6:25:31–34.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the proposed combination includes a “primary oblique image” as properly construed. As discussed above, we construe the term “primary oblique image” to require “a displayed oblique image that can be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” See supra § II.A.1(b). In its papers, Petitioner does not demonstrate that Snavely discloses a “primary oblique image” that can be considered “in front of” the other displayed images. To the contrary, we agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that the “main view” of Snavely’s Figure 5, which Petitioner points to as the “primary oblique image,” is “behind the other displayed images in overlay panes,” such as the information pane, thumbnail pane, and map pane, and “therefore, necessarily cannot be considered ‘in front of’ the other displayed images.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 60; see Ex. 1004, Fig. 5; PO Resp. 26. Our conclusion is also supported by the fact that Snavely refers to the information, map, and thumbnail panes as “overlay panes.” Ex. 1004, 5 (“The components of this window are the main view, which fills the window, and three overlay panes: an information and search pane on the left, a thumbnail pane along the bottom, and a map pane in the upper-right corner.”). We agree with and find credible Dr. Bajaj’s testimony that Snavely’s description of these panes as “overlay” panes confirms that “the main view image is behind the images shown in the map pane, the information pane, and the thumbnail pane.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 5). Additional support is found in Dr. Forsyth’s deposition testimony, where he explained that one of ordinary skill would have understood “overlay panes” to be “on top of” a main display:” slip op. at 38
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“E. Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude Patent Owner filed a Motion to Strike certain portions of the Third Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1020) and its Appendices, which Petitioner submitted to show that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date of the ’518 patent. Paper 30. Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Exclude certain Appendices of the Second Munford Declaration (Exhibit 1016) and Third Munford Declaration, which Petitioner also submitted to show public accessibility of Snavely and Irani. Paper 35. Because, as discussed above, we find that Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims would have been obvious over Snavely, Balfour, Irani, and Yelton, we need not reach whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Snavely and Irani were publicly accessible before the critical date. We, therefore, deny Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude as moot.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,593,518 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,593,518 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Theta IP, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2023 · IPR2023-00694 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 23, 29, or 30 obvious over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We, therefore, deny the Petition and do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“The two proposals are materially similar in the education requirement, but differ marginally in professional experience required (three versus five years). See supra. While we are persuaded, on the present record, that both Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposals are consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’330 patent and the prior art of record, on balance, Petitioner’s proposal is a better reflection of the level of skill in the prior art, and we, therefore, adopt it for this decision. Our decision would not change, however, if we had applied Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We construe claim terms only as relevant to the parties’ contentions and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the purpose of this decision, we do not need to construe this term to resolve a dispute.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANot reached
“In light of the analysis of the patentability of the claims that follows, and having considered the positions of the parties, we find that for the dispute. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803, supra. C. Other Terms We determine there are no other claim terms that need to be construed for this decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,010,330
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.