- PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–16 were unpatentable, chiefly because Rao did not teach blocking network access.
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. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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). “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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) held at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) had three to five years of experience with networking, power consumption of networked computing devices, and/or wireless digital communications systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–26). Petitioner further argues that “[m]ore related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 at ¶¶ 24–26). Patent Owner “does not challenge the Petition’s proposed definition.” Prelim. Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of a person having ordinary skill in the art, which is not disputed and consistent with the invention claimed in the ’076 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Patent Owner argues that the term “disallow[]” should be given the same construction the parties agreed upon during the district court proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 9. For the purposes of this Decision, 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 successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“However, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain where Rao teaches “allow[ing] or disallow[ing]” as recited in claim 1. See Pet. 13–18, 25–30. To the extent Petitioner and Dr. Bims cite to Rao, they reference paragraphs 191 through 193, which discuss how Rao’s filter 322 is used to implement prioritization. See Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65. More specifically, those paragraphs recite using prioritization to place the network packets in different queues based on their priority. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 191–193. We see nothing in Rao that teaches or suggest that the network packets would be disallowed, as opposed to simply delayed, based on priority. Id. And, as Patent Owner argues, this finding is consistent with factual findings made by a different panel considering the teachings of Rao in an inter partes review of a related patent. See Prelim. Resp. 16–18 (citing Samsung Elecs. Co v. Headwater Research LLC, IPR2023-01361, Paper 8 (PTAB Mar. 29, 2024) (Decision Denying Institution)). Even if one reads the Petition as arguing that a person having ordinary skill would have modified Rao to include Araujo’s blocking—which we do not—we would not be sufficiently persuaded by that argument. Although Petitioner explains why a person having ordinary skill in the art would want to consider power usage along with whether the application is in the foreground or background, Petitioner does not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have changed prioritization to blocking. See Pet. 13–18. Indeed, such a modification appears to be one that would render Rao “inoperable for its intended purpose.” In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,076 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00666 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required determination that access occurred during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that 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).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Almondnet, Inc. And Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00701 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the prior-art combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that 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).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“date of Provisional Application No. 60/858,204 (Ex. 1004, “’204 Provisional”), and is prior art to the ’878 Patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 9. Petitioner asserts that the ’204 Provisional provides support for the disclosure of Baig and provides § 112 support for at least one claim in Baig. Id. Petitioner asserts that there are no material differences between Baig and the ’204 Provisional. Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 43 (citing Ex. 1005 (redline comparison of Ex. 1003 and Ex. 1004))). Petitioner further contends that the ’204 Provisional includes 17 claims that are identical to the claims in Baig, and, therefore, provides written description support for the corresponding claims in Baig. Id. Petitioner also asserts the ’204 Provisional provides enablement. Id. Patent Owner has not challenged the status of Baig as prior art. See PO Resp. Based on our review of the complete record, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Baig is entitled to the earlier effective filing date of the ’204 Provisional Application.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition. Q So is it your opinion that the – the limitation 1B requires that the system determines whether or not the accesses by the -- the two electronic devices occurred within a predetermined period of time? A Yes.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / ROKU, Inc. et al. v. Intent Iq, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01281 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4 and 6–23 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations did not establish a determination that devices accessed the Internet during a predetermined period.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at critical time. Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kan. City, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The resolution of this question is important because it allows us to “maintain[] objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu–Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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 3 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2008/0113674 A1, published May 15, 2008 (Ex. 1003, “Baig”). 4 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2004/0128547 A1, published July 1, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Laidlaw”). 5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,427,170 B1, issued July 30, 2002 (Ex. 1007, “Sitaraman”). 6 Harley Hahn, The Internet Complete Reference (2d ed. 1996) (Ex. 1008, “Hahn”). 7 U.S. Pat. No. 7,730,030 B1, issued June 1, 2010 (Ex. 1009, “Xu”). 8 U.S. Pat. Pub. 2006/0282328 A1, published Dec. 14, 2006 (Ex. 1010, “Gerace”). 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Generally, it is easier to establish obviousness under a higher level of ordinary skill in the art. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A less sophisticated level of skill generally favors a determination of nonobviousness . . . while a higher level of skill favors the reverse.”). Petitioner asserts that 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).” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 10–14). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 26 (adopting Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art for the purposes of this proceeding). We are persuaded that Petitioner’s description is consistent with the prior art and patent specification. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. 42.100(b) (2023). Our rule adopts the same claim construction standard used by Article III federal courts, which follow Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), and its progeny. Under this standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. Petitioner “does not believe claim construction is necessary at this time.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not contend that any terms in the challenged claims require express construction for purposes of evaluating the Petition’s invalidity grounds.” PO Resp. 7. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments. First, we agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires there to be a determination that devices accessed the LAN during the predetermined period of time. The claim language recites that the determining of limitation (a) (which recites the determination of an association between the identifiers) is done using the stored association-detection information (which is alleged to be the cookies and session table of the cited art) “to determine” that the mobile devices have separately accessed the internet through a LAN “during a predetermined period of time.” See Ex. 1001, 24:29–49. Thus, we read this language to require that a determination be made that the required access occurred during a predetermined period of time. This reading of the claim language is accord with the opinion expressed by Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Schmandt, at his deposition.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,715,878 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,715,878 - Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com Services LLC v. Nokia Technologies OYInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00920 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 22–24, 26, 29–33, 35, or 38 were unpatentable over the asserted Koga-based grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). 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). “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). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in proving the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’991 patent. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a (1) bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study, and (2) approximately two to three years of practical experience with video and/or image processing or coding.” Pet. 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditonal experience can substitute for the level of education, and vice-versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–63). Petitioner also identifies knowledge that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have. Id. at 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Patent Owner states that it “has applied Petitioner’s [person having ordinary skill in the art] for the sake of this Response.” Prelim. Resp. 21. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’991 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Based on the ordinary meaning of the phrases, “spatial samples” and “spatial information” must refer to different information. Because the “spatial samples [are] decoded into spatial information,” the decoded “spatial information” must be different than the coded “spatial samples.” If “spatial information” were the same as “spatial samples,” then there would be nothing to decode. That construction is consistent with the claim construction rule that different terms are presumed to have different meanings. See MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects Ams., 238 F. App’x 605, 609 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings . . . .”)). Here, we see no evidence that the claim phrases have the same meaning. To the contrary, the ’991 patent uses the term spatial samples to refer to the image’s pixel values. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:65–67 (“the prediction error signal for a single image block is constructed using both transform basis functions and spatial samples (i.e., pixel values)”) (emphasis added); id. at 4:21–26 (same). The spatial information, however, refers to the result of decoding. See, e.g., id. at 3:29–30 (“the plurality of spatial samples are decoded into decoded spatial information”) (emphasis added); id. at 6:53–55 (“the decoded spatial information and reconstructed prediction of the image block are added together to form the decoded representation of the image block”) (emphasis added); id., Fig. 5, 520 (showing “Decoded Spatial Info”). This is consistent with the claim’s plain language. See id. at 10:1–2 (claim 22 reciting “decoding, by a processor, the plurality of spatial samples into decoded spatial information”) (emphasis added). Accordingly, “spatial samples” and “spatial information” do not refer to the same thing.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. Petitioner maps both spatial samples and spatial information to the residual of the prediction error. Compare Pet. 37 (referring to spatial samples as the residual of the prediction error), with id. at 44 (referring to spatial information as the residual of the prediction error). However, because spatial samples and spatial information cannot refer to the same thing, they cannot both be the residual of the prediction error. See Section II.C.1 supra. Accordingly, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that claim 22, along with dependent claims 23, 24, 26, and 30 would have been obvious over Koga. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”); Pet. 47–63 (relying on the analysis of claim 22 for the spatial samples and spatial information limitations). With regard to independent claim 31, along with dependent claims 32, 33, and 35, Petitioner relies on the same arguments discussed above for limitation 22a and 22c to show that Koga teaches commensurate limitations 31c and 31d. See Pet. 54 (“As explained above, Koga teaches the shared substantive limitations of [22a]–[22d] (supra §§VI.A.1) that correspond to limitations [31b]–[31e].”). Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 22, we are not sufficiently persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that independent claim 31, along with dependent claims 32, 33, and 35 would have been obvious in view of Koga.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,077,991 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00945 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Prelim. Resp. 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 67. Patent Owner argues Petitioner relies on Freund to “cure this deficiency,” but the “Petition fails to explain why [the skilled artisan] seeking to implement a Rao-based system would look to Freund’s teachings of foreground/background classifications designed to limit an employee’s ‘counterproductive Web browsing.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. According to Patent Owner and its expert, Mr. de la Iglesia, the skilled artisan “would not have been motivated to do so, because directly contrary to Rao which suggests prioritizing foreground activity over background activity, the relevant teachings of Freund restrict foreground activity relative to background activity.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 67–79); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69 (“Rao favors foreground activity, and Freund favors background activity”), 70 (“In contrast [to Rao], Freund teaches the opposite—that foreground activity should be disfavored relative to background activity.”); Prelim. Resp. 23–25. Patent Owner argues the “Petition does not explain why [the skilled artisan] would have been motivated to combine these two references’ treatment of foreground/background classifications, given their opposing treatment of foreground and background activity.” Id. at 25; see id. at 25–28 (Patent Owner explaining why “none of the Petition’s motivations would have justified combining Rao’s and Freund’s contradictory teachings regarding treatment of foreground activity.” (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–79)). In short, according to Patent Owner’s expert’s persuasive testimony, “if [the skilled artisan] were looking for ways to supplement Rao’s treatment of foreground activity, they would not have looked to teachings that explicitly disfavor foreground activities, contrary to Rao’s teachings.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 79 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 28).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.”). In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors 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) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’613 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan (Ex. 1003 ¶ 61), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 3 (“No terms require construction to resolve this Petition.”); Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,215,613 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 4, 2024 · IPR2024-00944 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Rao anticipates or renders obvious claims 79 and 83.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’541 patent. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied.” slip op. at 24
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“the Petition (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 189–193 (cited by Pet. 22)) and see no discussion as to what causes policies 520 to be sent to filter 322. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43 (Mr. de la Iglesia testifying to same). Although Rao describes how agent 326 sends policies to filter 322, Rao is silent as to what causes that transmission: In some embodiments, the agent 326 indicates the priority to the filter 322 for management of network packet queues 540a- 540n to apply the indicated priorities. The agent 326 may communicate the priority of network packets to the filter 322 by any suitable means and/or mechanism such as via an application programming interface (API), such an IOCTL interface, or any other type and/or form of interface known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 190. That is, Rao is silent as to whether filter 322 requests the policies (as Petitioner argues) or agent 326 acts on its own to send the policies (see Prelim. Resp. 3–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–40). And without the message being sent to the filter, there is nothing for the filter to intercept.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“the Petition (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 189–193 (cited by Pet. 22)) and see no discussion as to what causes policies 520 to be sent to filter 322. See Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 42–43 (Mr. de la Iglesia testifying to same). Although Rao describes how agent 326 sends policies to filter 322, Rao is silent as to what causes that transmission: In some embodiments, the agent 326 indicates the priority to the filter 322 for management of network packet queues 540a- 540n to apply the indicated priorities. The agent 326 may communicate the priority of network packets to the filter 322 by any suitable means and/or mechanism such as via an application programming interface (API), such an IOCTL interface, or any other type and/or form of interface known to those ordinarily skilled in the art. Ex. 1002 ¶ 190. That is, Rao is silent as to whether filter 322 requests the policies (as Petitioner argues) or agent 326 acts on its own to send the policies (see Prelim. Resp. 3–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 34–40). And without the message being sent to the filter, there is nothing for the filter to intercept.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Neither the Petition nor Dr. Wolfe’s testimony provide any discussion as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Rao to teach the additional limitation recited in either claim 79 or 83. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 252–257. This stands in contrast to other portions of the Petition where Petitioner clearly set forth both anticipation and conditional obviousness arguments, including a reason to modify Rao. See, e.g., Pet. 13–15 (arguing that Rao discloses limitation 1e or that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would . . . have been motivated” to modify Rao). Thus, although the Petition purports to argue that claims 79 and 83 are obvious,8 the Petition lacks sufficient argument setting forth the basis for such an obviousness argument. At most, there is a conclusory statement that claims 79 and 83 are obvious. See Pet. 6 (“Rao anticipates most of the limitations discussed under this Ground for the reasons provided below. Rao renders these same limitations obvious for the same reasons.”). That is not sufficient. Where, as here, claims are alleged to be unpatentable as obvious over the prior art, Petitioner cannot make its case solely through mere conclusory statements. In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, it is not our role to examine the prior art advanced by Petitioner and fill the gaps in Petitioner’s reasoning and factual assertions. Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1381 (“[W]e find no support for the PTO’s position that the Board is free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised 8 See Pet. 1 (“Rao ‘anticipates and/or renders obvious’ claims” 1, 79, and 83), 6 (“Rao anticipates most of the limitations discussed under this Ground for the reasons provided below. Rao renders these same limitations obvious for the same reasons. Rao also renders obvious the remaining limitations discussed under this Ground.”); Pet. Prelim. Reply 1 (“Rao therefore discloses or renders obvious intercepting a stack API level request by its filter requesting priorities from the agent.”). by the petitioner during an IPR.”); see also SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348 (U.S. 2008) (“in an inter partes review the petitioner is master of its complaint”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon”). Because Petitioner has not offered any reason why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have made a modification to claims 79 and 83, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that claims 79 and 83 would have been obvious. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of [the] prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - Biofrontera Inc. / Biofrontera Bioscience GmbH et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Nov 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00874 · APJ Erica A Franklin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show Bansal's claimed light intensity arrangement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An obviousness determination requires finding both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367– 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Obviousness grounds must be supported with “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” and not by “mere conclusory statements.” See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S at 418. slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown for institution that Bansal teaches or suggests arranging light sources “such that a higher intensity of light is emitted proximate the second edges compared to the intensity of light emitted not proximate the second edges,” as required by the challenged claims. Instead, Petitioner demonstrates how Bansal describes varying the density of light source distribution throughout the array to provide a higher density of light in the entire peripheral area of the array, which includes the areas proximal to both the first and second edges, as compared to the central area of the array. See Pet. 36–37; Ex. 1005 ¶ 25. In this regard, Petitioner relies on Bansal’s Figure 9b, asserting that it “shows one embodiment where more light sources are placed near the edges of the panel compared to the light sources in the center.” Pet. 36–37. The comparison of Bansal’s light density between the entire periphery and the central area of the array is insufficient. What is missing from Petitioner’s argument and discussion of Bansal is how Bansal teaches or suggests a configuration that provides a higher density of light proximate to the second shorter edges of the periphery in comparison to the remaining areas of the array, which includes the first longer edges of the periphery. Without that discussion, we find that Petitioner has not shown sufficient for institution that Bansal is persuasively relied upon for the light source arrangement limitation of the challenged claims. likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge of independent claims 1, 5, 16, 20, or 21, or dependent claims 2, 4, 6–8, and 17–19 over Larsen, Bansal, and Jones.” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelOther
“would have had at least a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, physics, biomedical engineering, computer engineering, chemical engineering, material science, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one year of work or research experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, photodynamic diagnosis (PD), photodynamic therapy (PDT), phototherapy (PT), or a related field. Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that, alternatively, a “POSITA in the relevant time frame would have had at least four years of industry or academic experience in optics, optoelectronics, radiometry, photometry, PD, PDT, PT, or a related field.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 37). According to Patent Owner, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application for the ’028 patent was filed, “would have had a M.D. and/or a Ph.D. in an electrical engineering, physics, optical sciences, optical engineering, or a related scientific or engineering field, and at least one to two years of work or research experience in optical engineering, optics, optoelectronics, phototherapy (‘PT’), PDT, or a related field.” Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner asserts that, “[a]lternatively, a POSITA could have a Bachelor’s degree in one of the above areas and at least three to four years of work or research experience in that area.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). We note that the parties’ proposed definitions are largely similar. To the extent that the proposed definitions differ, we do not need to resolve those differences as our findings and conclusion in this Decision would be the same under any of the proposed definitions.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,697,028 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. G+ Communications, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 31, 2024 · IPR2023-00441 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 and 17–18 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not disclose a “pre-set UE number” under the adopted construction.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded to maintain our preliminary construction. Indeed, as already noted, Petitioner does not argue for the preliminary construction. Neither does Petitioner question the validity of the reasons given for the District Court’s construction. Rather, Petitioner repeats its position that it “takes no position on the District Court’s construction” and Petitioner does not have any reason “as to why that construction is wrong or right.” Tr. 18:24–19:6. We do not see any reason to construe “pre-set UE number” contrary to what the District Court has determined. Indeed, we find the District Court’s analysis of the issue highly persuasive and adopt it as our own. And Petitioner has not provided any argument regarding construction of the term, simply taking no position on its correctness.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner has forfeited the indefiniteness argument. Regardless, we are given no reason to find construction of the two means-plus function terms impossible given the District Court determination. We agree that the scope of the terms is based on a means-plus function analysis. We are not persuaded that structure is not sufficiently described.” slip op. at 14
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner argues that this argument was not presented in the Petition and is too late and/or incorrect. Sur-reply 5. We agree with Patent Owner. Neither Patent Owner nor the Board were given any notice of this argument in the Petition. Regardless, we find no merit in Petitioner’s argument. Fundamentally, our jurisdiction regarding patentability is limited to Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). We do not find that claim 18 is so indefinite that a patentability determination is impossible. See Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 802, 812–813 (Fed. Circ. 2021) (claim construction obligation “does not mean that the Board must reach a determination of the patentability of a claim on the presented prior-art grounds if such a determination is rendered impossible because of the indefiniteness of an essential claim limitation.”). Indeed, the District Court determined that the corresponding structure is a processor programmed to either (1) descramble a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) of Downlink Control Information (DCI) for scheduling the RAR according to a pre-set RA-RNTI or an RA-RNTI corresponding to the preamble, and receive the RAR, the RAR including at least one TCRNTI and/or at least one Uplink (UL) grant. Ex. 2008, 23 (quoting Ex. 1001, 2:66–3:4). (2) determine corresponding RA-RNTIs according to respective IDs and/or preambles, descramble a CRC of DCI for scheduling the RAR according to the corresponding RA-RNTIs, and receive corresponding RARs, the RAR including a TCRNTI and/or a UL grant allocated to the first UE or second UE.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Our construction of “pre-set UE number” is dispositive of this proceeding. See Section III.B.1 above. Petitioner agrees that both Li and Kim “don’t disclose that the message 3 includes a ‘pre-set number of UEs’” under our final construction of “pre-set UE number.” Pet. Reply 4; see also Tr. 7:20–22 (“Under [the District Court] construction, Li and Kim would not disclose Claim 1, at least Claim 1, of the ’430 patent”); 11:3–17 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing claim 18 is indefinite but agreeing neither claim 1 nor 18 have been shown unpatentable under the District Court construction of “preset UE number”). For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has not shown a by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 18 are anticipated by Li.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,448,430 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,448,430 - PLR Worldwide Sales Ltd. v. Flip Phone Games Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 29, 2024 · IPR2024-00133 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–10 were unpatentable under any asserted obviousness ground.
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 [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] 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) (2023).” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this Decision, 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))). To the extent necessary, we address the parties’ implicit claim constructions in the context of the arguments on the merits of the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “an undergraduate degree in game design, computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience working with computer gaming systems or software application development,” and that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–72). Petitioner’s recitation of the level of ordinary is consistent with the invention disclosed in the ’089 patent. It is also not disputed by Patent Owner at this time. See Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least” which we change to “about.”” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 3 above is an example of the embodiment of Ho showing a wings button, a car, and a hamburger monster in the foreground. Ex. 1004, 5:1–5, Fig. 3. Ho describes how the various interactive information elements are used for game play. See id. at 5:11–38. For example, hamburger monster 56 may be engaged when character 52 fights and successfully slays the hamburger monster, car 58 may be engaged when character 52 enters the car, and “wings” button 54 may be engaged (for example when character 52 wishes to fly) by clicking on icon 54 using a pointer, or by using an enclosure moving between different icons to highlight icon 54 to engage the icon. Id. Because Petitioner has not shown persuasive evidence that a user would not have expected those objects to be ones that the user could interact with, Petitioner has not shown them to be background objects. Petitioner also argues that Ho teaches that activating the interactive information elements “does not disrupt gameplay” and is therefore “outside the primary focus of game play.” Pet. 31–32 (quoting 5:36–38). We do not find that argument persuasive for two reasons. First, we do not see how the fact that activating an element without disrupting game play means the element is in the background. Petitioner and its expert simply make a statement without any explanation. See id.; Ex. 1003 ¶ 122. Such conclusory statements are not persuasive. Second, the language in Ho Petitioner relies on is not about the interactive information element, which Petitioner maps to the hotspot. Instead, Ho describes a sub-screen that appears after the user interacts with one of the interactive information elements, namely when the user slays the hamburger monster: “Similarly, making the character 52 slay the hamburger monster 56 may generate a sub-screen showing an advertisement of a chain of fast food restaurants. The sub-screen may also be overlain on the game environment and may not be disruptive to gameplay.” Ex. 1004, 5:35–38. Petitioner does not persuasively explain how a nondisruptive sub-screen that appears after an interaction with an object makes the object a background object.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,688,089
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.