• Schlumberger Technology Corporation v. Dynaenergetics Europe GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2021 · PGR2021-00089 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “We are authorized to institute a post-grant review where a petition demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least one challenged patent claim is unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 324. We are never compelled to institute a review, however, because institution is discretionary. Id.; cf. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that under § 314(a), “the PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding”). As in an IPR proceeding, we deny post-grant review, for example, where a petition fails to identify “with particularity” the challenges or evidence supporting them. Cf. Harmonic, 815 F.3d at 1363; 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the institution of post-grant review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would be expected to have at least a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two years of industry experience related to assembling, operating, and/or designing perforating tools.” Pet. 10 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 28). Patent Owner “believes that Petitioner’s definition suggests that a field technician who merely assembles guns could be a POSITA, which is incorrect,” and instead proposes “a POSITA would be expected to have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Mechanical or Electrical Engineering and at least two (2) years of industry experience related to designing perforating gun systems.” Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 52). For the purposes of institution, we do not see a material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Nonetheless, because Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the record, including the prior art, we adopt the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner for purposes of this Decision. See GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “D. Claim Construction We interpret a claim “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. § 42.200(b) (2020). This standard requires that we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim[s] as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.; see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see also 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 AIA trial proceeding). Patent Owner proposes constructions for “shaped charge receptacle” and “retention mechanism extending from a portion of the body.” Prelim. Resp. 36–38; see also PO Sur-reply 1–5. In its Reply, Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s proposed constructions. Pet. Reply 2–3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires explicit construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (construing explicitly only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “In addition, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently explained its alternative argument based on the “simple substitution of the circular openings (for inserting the shaped charges) in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel.” Pet. 90 (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 485). As an initial matter, Petitioner’s proposed substitution lacks sufficient clarity because it remains unclear which of Vann’s structures remain in the resulting combination. By emphasizing substitution of the “circular openings” alone in Vann, Petitioner suggests that Vann’s tabs 62 remain without explaining why the tabs are necessary if Von Kaenel’s tabs retain the shaped charges. See id. As discussed, Vann requires that the plurality of charge holders are placed in tandem and jointly cooperate together to make up a charge carrier 48. Ex. 1009, 5:50–56. To do so, tabs 62 formed by extended lateral edges 56, 58 are aligned in an overhanging relationship relative to the central lateral face 70 of the two adjacent charge holders. Id. at 6:61–64, Fig. 5. If the proposed combination employs Von Kaenel’s tabs to retain the charges, preserving the overhanging relationship of Vann’s tabs 62 to retain the charges would appear superfluous, and if Petitioner proposes retaining Vann’s tabs 62 but removing the overhanging relationship, Petitioner does not describe such a structure. In either case, a substitution of Vann’s circular openings alone while Vann’s tabs 62 remain in the resulting combination lacks adequate specificity and support. For completeness, we assess Petitioner’s argument based on the assumption that Petitioner proposes removing Vann’s tabs 62 entirely from the proposed combination. Per this theory, a POSITA would have simply substituted Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 for Vann’s tabs 62 because a POSITA would have recognized the advantages of having the retention mechanisms be a part of the body in order reduce the number of tools and assembly required, to allow for differing offsets, as well as to simplify manufacturing, as discussed in each of Vann, Brooks, and Von Kaenel. Pet. 89–90 (emphasis added) (citing Parrott Decl. ¶ 484; Ex. 1013, Abstract, 2:60–3:16, 5:20–41, 8:41–58; Ex. 1009, 1:18–21, 2:22–29, 1:66–67, 1:41– 43, 3:63–68, 4:14–24; Ex. 1010, 9:48–53, 1:52–64). However, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how this substitution would “simplify manufacturing” for Vann’s specific stacked formation. Indeed, Vann’s charge carrier is formed by a plurality of charge holders that jointly cooperate in tandem, which includes the cooperation of extended lateral edges that overhang the central lateral face of adjacent charge holders. See Ex. 1009, 6:61–64; Fig. 5. Substitution of Vann’s tabs 62 with Von Kaenel’s side locking tabs 610 would affect Vann’s tandem construction if tabs 62 are removed. See Pet. 80–95. More importantly, Petitioner has failed to explain adequately why a POSITA would have sought to make this combination to simplify manufacturing or reduce assembly given Vann’s specific charge carrier design, which is dependent on the overhanging relationship between separate, stacked charge holders. Id. Further, Mr. Parrott’s testimony is not helpful on this point. In paragraph 485 (cited by Petitioner), Mr. Parrott states that Von Kaenel’s tabs (retention mechanisms) would have been applied with ease to Vann’s perforating gun apparatus, which would have yielded predictable results. A POSITA would have recognized the combination as a simple substitution of the circular openings for inserting the shaped charges in Vann for the circular openings with tabs in Von Kaenel, and a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Parrott Decl. ¶ 485 (emphases added). Like the Petition, these statements by Mr. Parrott are conclusory and do not explain the basis for his conclusions. See id. Looking elsewhere, paragraph 484 mirrors statements and citations in the Petition, which as discussed, are insufficient. Id. ¶ 484. And although paragraph 483 articulates the advantages of using “Von Kaenel’s superior teachings in order to better achieve the goal of reliably securing and positioning the shaped charges,” Mr. Parrott neglects to explain the proposed substitution in the context of Vann’s specific charge carrier design that relies on the overhanging edges/tabs of the charge holders for the in tandem assembly and construction. Id. ¶ 483 (citing Ex. 1013, Fig. 6B, 8:59–67). The Supreme Court has made clear that we apply “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than a mere showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each separate limitation in a claim under examination. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention. Id. Here, Petitioner has failed to make the threshold showing for the” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,844,696
• Apple, Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00972 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR of claims 1–23 on all three asserted §103 grounds; Apple showed a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “We typically take courts’ trial schedules at “face value,” and decline Petitioner’s invitation to speculate that the target date for completion of the ITC Investigation will slip as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 13 (informative). Accordingly, for purposes of analyzing this factor, we assume that the ITC Investigation will conclude on October 26, 2022. We also decline Petitioner’s invitation to assume an earlier date for issuance of our FWD. Although we appreciate Petitioner’s willingness to expedite resolution of this case, Patent Owner raises valid concerns that compressing the reply period will also compress the window for taking depositions. Moreover, the statutory due date for our FWD is triggered by the date of our institution decision and is unaffected by the date on which Petitioner files its reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). Given that our FWD in this case is due seven weeks after the targeted completion of the ITC Investigation, we determine that this factor weighs marginally in favor of exercising our discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 10

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Petitioner shows, based on this preliminary record, where each of the limitations of the challenged claims is taught or suggested by the combination of Shmueli and Osorio. Pet. 11–64. Petitioner’s assertions above are backed by the cited prior art and by the testimony of its declarant, Dr. Chaitman. Id.; see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–150. On this preliminary record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence are sufficient for purposes of institution. We focus our discussion on Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not sufficiently supported a motivation to combine Shmueli and Osorio and that Shmueli and Osorio do not disclose “key elements” of the independent claims. Prelim. Resp. 30–42.” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “As such, Dr. Chaitman would appear to qualify as one of ordinary skill in the art under Patent Owner’s proposed definition. Given Patent Owner’s focus on “specialized engineering skills necessary for the design, configuration, and operation of portable computing devices,” however, we note that we consider the weight of his, or any other expert’s opinions, in light of the strengths and weaknesses of their background. We further note that the research and development of medical devices is often the work of a multidisciplinary team, and courts and tribunals have frequently identified the hypothetical person of ordinary skill as a composite or team of individuals with complementary backgrounds and skills. See, e.g., AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Anchen Pharm., Inc., No. 10-CV-1835 JAP TJB, 2012 WL 1065458, at *19, *22 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012), aff'd, 498 F. App’x 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); Apotex Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2017-00854, Paper 109 at 10–11 (PTAB July 11, 2018) (collecting cases). In the present case, such a team might include specialists in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and cardiology. In this respect, Patent Owner’s expert does not discount the benefit of a background in cardiology. In particular, Dr. Efimov testifies that although a cardiologist may or may not possess the specialized engineering skills to understand the design, configuration, and operation of the subject technology, “a degree in biomedical or electrical engineering (or an equivalent), and/or extensive experience working with arrhythmia detection tools would also be necessary” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–53 (emphasis added).9 Indeed, considering that the claims of the ’941 patent relate to, e.g., “method[s] of cardiac monitoring” to “confirm a presence of the arrhythmia,” we find it reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would encompass a multidisciplinary team including a cardiologist. Ex. 1001, 17:1–18. In view of the above, we provisionally define one of ordinary skill in the art as a multidisciplinary team comprising persons with advanced degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology. The parties are welcome to further address the level of ordinary skill in the art at trial. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “cardiac arrhythmia as opposed some other heart condition. Id. at 31–32. In this respect Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Efimov, testifies that Shmueli makes no attempt to define “irregular heart condition” with any specificity, and “one can only speculate” as to its meaning because “numerous conditions can be considered heart irregularities: normal autonomic nervous system control, autonomic dysfunction, heart failure, ischemia, myocardial infarction, heart block, etc.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 69. At this stage of the proceeding, however, we credit Dr. Chaitman’s testimony that Shmueli discloses “both detecting the ‘irregular heart condition’ based on PPG data and confirming the diagnosis with an ECG measurement.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 54 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 8; 8:23–28). And although Shmueli “offers an expansive definition of the ‘irregular heart condition,’” one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this term as referring to arrhythmia, which is “one of the most obvious (if not the most obvious) types of ‘irregular heart condition[s]’ that can be determined using PPG and ECG data.” Id. Considering the present record, Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Shmueli’s use of “irregular heart condition” as referring to—or at a minimum, encompassing—arrhythmia, and, thus, disclosing the detection of arrhythmia. See Pet. 13–14 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 54).” slip op. at 37

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,638,941
• Apple, Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00971 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all grounds in the Petition, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 58 & n.2, (“Trial Practice Guide”).6 We consider the following factors to assess “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”: 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”). In evaluating these factors, we “take[] a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6. Upon consideration of these factors, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny the Petition. A. Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists That One May Be Granted if a Proceeding is Instituted” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “skill in the art under Patent Owner’s proposed definition. Given Patent Owner’s focus on “specialized engineering skills necessary for the design, configuration, and operation of portable computing devices,” however, we consider the weight of his, or any other expert’s opinions, in light of the strengths and weaknesses of their background. We further note that the research and development of medical devices is often the work of a multidisciplinary team, and courts and tribunals have frequently identified the hypothetical person of ordinary skill as a composite or team of individuals with complementary backgrounds and skills. See, e.g., AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Anchen Pharm., Inc., 2012 WL 1065458, at *19, *22 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012), aff'd, 498 F. App’x 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); Apotex Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2017-00854, Paper 109 at 10–11 (PTAB July 11, 2018) (collecting cases). In the present case, such a team might include specialists in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and cardiology. In this respect, Patent Owner’s expert does not discount the benefit of a background in cardiology. In particular, Dr. Efimov testifies that although a cardiologist may or may not possess the specialized engineering skills to understand the design, configuration, and operation of the subject technology, “a degree in biomedical or electrical engineering (or an equivalent), and/or extensive experience working with arrhythmia detection tools would also be necessary.” Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 52–53 (emphasis added).10 Indeed, considering that the ’731 patent “relates to methods and systems for managing health and disease such as cardiac diseases including arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation,” we find it reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would encompass a multidisciplinary team including a cardiologist. In view of the above, we provisionally define one of ordinary skill in the art as a multidisciplinary team comprising persons with advanced degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology. The parties are welcome to further address the level of ordinary skill in the art at trial.” slip op. at 27

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We interpret a claim “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). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we need only construe the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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))). At this stage of the proceeding, no term requires construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). The parties are, of course, welcome to address the meaning of any relevant claim term at trial. D. Ground 1: Obviousness over Shmueli” slip op. at 29

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding, however, we credit Dr. Chaitman’s testimony that, “Shmueli discloses both detecting the ‘irregular heart condition’ based on PPG data and confirming the diagnosis with an ECG measurement.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 48 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstract, Fig. 8; 8:23–28). And although Shmueli “offers an expansive definition of ‘irregular heart condition,’” one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood this term as referring to arrhythmia, “which is one of the most obvious (if not the most obvious) types of ‘irregular heart condition[s]’ that can be determined using PPG and ECG data.” Id. (citing, Ex. 1016, 6081; Ex. 1020, Abstract, 44:29– 32; Ex. 1011, Abstract; Ex. 1023, 2; Ex. 1047, 320–321; Ex. 1001, 1:40–42; Ex. 1004, 8:11–13, 15:3–5) (alteration in original). Considering the present record, Petitioner has established sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Shmueli’s use of “irregular heart condition” as referring to—or at a minimum, encompassing—arrhythmia, and, thus, disclosing the detection of arrhythmia. See Pet. 10–12 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 48).” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,595,731
• Apple, Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 8, 2021 · IPR2021-00970 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 under the asserted obviousness grounds based on Shmueli and Osorio, with Hu for claims 7–9 and 17–19.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “and merely argues that Petitioner does not rely on Hu to correct the alleged deficiencies of Shmueli–Osorio combination of Ground 1. Prelim. Resp. 42– 43. As discussed above, however, we do not find Petitioner’s arguments with respect to Ground 1 deficient for the purposes of institution. Accordingly, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered at least one claim of the ’499 patent obvious for the reasons set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 47

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner

    “grounds, arguments, and/or evidence than the ITC Investigation. Although Patent Owner argues that the prior art cited in the Petition has “already entered the ITC case,” that argument was made before Petitioner narrowed the number of prior art references it intended to rely upon, as required by the ITC’s Order Setting Procedural Schedule. Ex. 2006; Ex. 1057. Currently there does not appear to be any overlap in arguments or evidence between the two proceedings. Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that its stipulation mitigates to some degree concerns of duplicative efforts and possibly conflicting decisions between the Board and the ITC. Indeed, Petitioner’s stipulation echoes the one cited in Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC, which the Board determined weighed “marginally in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 at 16 (PTAB June 16, 2020) (informative). Finally, we agree with Petitioner that this proceeding will likely include claims that are not at issue in the ITC Investigation. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to explain why the narrowed set of claims would be substantially different than those challenged in the IPR petition because, based on the ITC’s Order Setting Procedural Schedule, Patent Owner had yet to narrow the number of asserted claims as of the deadline for Petitioner to brief this issue. See Ex. 3001 (email from the Board authorizing the parties to brief discretionary denial issues, setting a deadline of October 25, 2021 for Petitioner to file its” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “frequently identified the hypothetical person of ordinary skill as a composite or team of individuals with complementary backgrounds and skills. See, e.g., AstraZeneca Pharm. LP v. Anchen Pharm., Inc., 2012 WL 1065458, at *19, *22 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 2012), aff'd, 498 F. App’x 999 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (collecting cases); Apotex Inc. v. Novartis AG, IPR2017-00854, Paper 109 at 10–11 (PTAB July 11, 2018) (collecting cases). In the present case, such a team might include specialists in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and cardiology. In this respect, Patent Owner’s expert does not discount the benefit of a background in cardiology. In particular, Dr. Efimov testifies that although a cardiologist may or may not possess the specialized engineering skills to understand the design, configuration, and operation of the subject technology, “a degree in biomedical or electrical engineering (or an equivalent), and/or extensive experience working with arrhythmia detection tools would also be necessary” Ex. 2001 ¶ ¶ 51–52 (emphasis added). Indeed, considering that the ’499 patent “relates to methods and systems for managing health and disease such as cardiac diseases including arrhythmia and atrial fibrillation,” we find it reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would encompass a multidisciplinary team including a cardiologist. In view of the above, we provisionally define one of ordinary skill in the art as a multidisciplinary team comprising persons with advanced degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, computer science, and/or cardiology. The parties are welcome to further address the level of ordinary skill in the art at trial.” slip op. at 28

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “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). Under this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, at this stage in the proceeding, we need only construe the claims to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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))). Patent Owner notes that claim terms “heart rate sensor” and those relating to “alert” are at issue in the related ITC Investigation but neither party proposes any construction here. See Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2009). At this stage of the instant proceeding no term requires construction. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803 (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). The parties are, of course, welcome to address the meaning of any relevant claim term at trial. D. Ground 1: Obviousness over Shmueli and Osorio” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,572,499
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01038 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30, 32, 33, 35, and 37–40 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 31, 34, and 36 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “E. Level of Skill in the Art To determine the level of an ordinarily skilled artisan, various factors” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “claim terms for construction at that stage of the proceeding, and we did not construe any claim terms expressly as none of the terms were in dispute. Inst. Dec. 22. In the briefing following institution, Patent Owner proposed a construction for the term “inventory,” see, e.g., PO Resp. 21–28, and it became clear that the parties dispute the meaning of the term. Accordingly, we address the parties’ proposed constructions for “inventory” and the arguments they present for those constructions.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “As set forth above, we resolved those disputed issues in favor of Petitioner. For the portions of the preamble and limitations of claim 35 that are not recited in claim 30, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence for claim 35 and are persuaded that Field teaches or suggests the preamble and claim limitations. Pet. 25–28 (and the exhibits cited therein). Thus, we find that Field teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 35. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has proven that claim 35 would have been obvious over Field.” slip op. at 55

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “metadata into its signature generating algorithm to create a more robust signature. Ex. 1005 ¶ 46. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use such an augmented signature generating algorithm in Field’s environment. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Thus, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Field’s cryptographic signature generating algorithm so it would compute a file’s signature using a file’s metadata. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40. Accordingly, Field and Anderson disclose that “the cryptographic signature is also computed with the metadata.” Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1004 ¶ 40.” slip op. at 76

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Veeam Software Corp. v. Hybir Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01037 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8–15, 18, 19, 21–29, and 34 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claims 3, 4, 7, 16, 17, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, and Petitioner does not address our preliminary finding in its Reply. Accordingly, we see no reason to disturb that finding, and, therefore, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Accordingly, we find that the record does not support construing” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not transmit an inventory with multiple signatures due to a concern with backup efficiency. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 81

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “144, 202; Pet. Reply 20–21; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 59–62. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that claims 3 and 16 would have been obvious over Field and Anderson. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 129–130.” slip op. at 101

  Patent outcomesUS 8,051,043 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,051,043
• Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01040 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Field; the Board did not reach the alternative Strong and Field ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “As we noted in the Institution Decision, Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response proposed a level of ordinary skill in the art that was very similar to Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 15 (citing Prelim. Resp. 28). On the preliminary record at that time, we found both parties’ proposals consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). And, on that record, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have “a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Software Engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least three to five years of academic or industry experience in the fields of data storage, data backup, data restoration, data replication and deduplication, and/or data synchronization.” Id. at 16.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingNo construction neededDecided for petitioner

    “which states: “A method of synchronizing electronic data stored on a first client device with at least a second client device.” Ex. 1001, 19:8–9. Petitioner contends the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting because it states a purpose or intended use for the method recited and neither the term synchronizing nor the full preamble is referenced again in other claim elements. Pet. 10 (citing Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Prods, Inc., 919 F.3d 1320, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the preamble of claim 1 does not limit the scope of the claim. See Inst. Dec. 18–19. Patent Owner does not contest that preliminary determination in its Response and confirmed at the oral hearing that it does not contend the preamble is limiting. See generally PO Resp.; Tr. 107:15– 16 (confirming that Patent Owner does not assert the preamble is limiting). Accordingly, for the reasons explained in our Institution Decision and because the parties agree, we maintain our preliminary determination and reaffirm that the preamble of claim 1 is not limiting, and, therefore, we need not expressly construe it.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “unclear. Nonetheless, we find that Field teaches receiving a first “inventory” for the reasons explained by Petitioner and based on our construction of “inventory” at least because Field receives an itemized list of electronic data in the form of one or more signatures. Thus, since Field teaches an “inventory,” we do not agree with Patent Owner that Field teaches away from an “inventory.” Additionally, “[a] reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . . would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that, to teach away, the prior art must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed”). Patent Owner, however, fails to identify, and we do not discern, any indication in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from following Field’s teachings or modifying Field as proposed by Petitioner. Further, to this latter point, we do not discern any specific argument by Patent Owner that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Field as Petitioner proposes, aside from Patent Owner’s assertions of teaching away.22 Considering the complete record before us, for the reasons explained above we find that Petitioner has established that Field teaches or suggests limitation 1A.1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason with rational underpinning to modify Field as proposed by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 54

  Patent outcomesUS 9,679,146 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,146
• Veeam Software Corporation v. Hybir, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 2, 2021 · IPR2020-01039 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Field and Anderson; claim 5 over Field, Anderson, and Ackerman; and claim 11 over Field, Anderson, and Coombs.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Accordingly, we find that the complete record does not support” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “away and (2) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Field in light of potential inefficiencies. With respect to whether Field teaches away, Patent Owner’s argument is premised, in part, on a requirement derived from its proposed construction of “inventory”—that the claimed “inventory” must include additional data, such as filenames and directories. As discussed above, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s construction. Similar to Patent Owner’s earlier argument of a teaching away, Patent Owner fails to identify anything in Field that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages one of ordinary skill in the art from creating an inventory, as properly construed. Accordingly, we do not find that Field teaches away from using or creating an inventory.” slip op. at 69

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Weighing the Graham Factors On balance, considering the complete record before us, Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Field, Anderson, and Coombs would have rendered the subject matter of claim 11 of the ’545 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 99

  Patent outcomesUS 9,037,545 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,037,545
• SAP SE v. Teradata US, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 1, 2021 · IPR2021-01017 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, failing to show the claimed file management context in non-persistent memory.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’419 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have possessed at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience with database system development.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have had “some combination of (1) more formal education and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 21–22). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which expands the range of experience indefinitely without an upper bound, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the ’419 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner contends that no claim terms require explicit construction at this stage of the proceeding. Pet. 16. Patent Owner contends that in related district court litigation, Petitioner has proposed construing several terms in accordance with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, and Patent Owner faults Petitioner for not applying those constructions in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Based on the record before us, we need not construe any claim terms expressly to decide the issues presented at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “does not show sufficiently that the combination of System R and Lorie teaches a “file management context” stored in “non-persistent memory.” See Prelim. Resp. 16–22. As an initial matter, Petitioner asserts that the “Current Page Table and associated data structures such as free-space bit maps” comprise the claimed “file management context” in “non-persistent memory,” but Petitioner does not cite any passage in System R disclosing that the current page table (or any associated data structure) resides “in memory” rather than “on disk,” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of System R’s Figure 7. See Pet. 28–35. Nor does Petitioner point to any disclosure in Lorie in support of its contention that the current page table in the System R database system is stored in non-persistent memory. See id.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,904,419
• Walmart Inc. / Z-Shade Co., Ltd. et al. v. Caravan Canopy International, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 22, 2021 · IPR2021-00449 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 are unpatentable as obvious over Yang and Lynch because the combination teaches the claimed elements and increased headroom supplied a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “invention of the ’040 patent would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in the mechanical arts, including but not limited to mechanical engineering and industrial design, (2) at least two years of experience in the design or analysis of mechanical devices, fabricated frames, and/or kinematic linkages, and (3) at least a basic understanding of ergonomics. As to part (1), although the parties outline generally similar requirements as to formal schooling, Patent Owner’s proposal provides enhanced clarity as to the identity of the related disciplines, which we view as supported by the record. See, e.g., Klopp Pet. Decl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Rake Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7–9, 19. As to part (2), the parties again outline similar requirements as to work experience, but Petitioner’s proposal provides added detail on experience in relevant design features, which we view as supported by the record. See Exs. 1004–1007. As to part (3), given the nature of the technology at issue, we view a basic understanding of ergonomics as relevant to one of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:12–49 (discussing operation of the invention by a person); Rake Decl. ¶ 31, cited at PO Resp. 4. This is the same level of ordinary skill adopted in the Decision on Institution. See Dec. Inst. 32–34.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed

    “centrally-disposed, long, slender object.” Pet. 28–32. Patent Owner responds that the District Court rejected this proposal and held that the phrase should be given its “plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 5–6; see also Ex. 1018 at 6–10 (the District Court declining to construe “center pole”). We do not discern a need to construe explicitly this phrase because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “applicant acted as a lexicographer as to the term “stretching.” We determine that the Specification supports an understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning as extending or spreading out rather than as “make taut” or in “tension.” As argued by Petitioner, “[t]here is no description requiring that a roof be made taut or placed under tension” and, “[t]o the contrary, the specification consistently uses the word ‘stretch’ to describe extending or spreading out.” Pet. Reply 11. For example, in the eleven instances the Specification uses some form of the word “stretch” (aside from in claim 1), six instances relate to “stretching” the frame (or some component of the frame), rather than the roof. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)), 3:15–19 (“When it is necessary to pitch the tent, the four side poles 10 are pushed outwardly at the same time, thus stretching the tent frame. When the side poles 10 are pushed outwardly as described above, the sliders 70 move upward along the side poles 10 while stretching the two 14 Under the same logic, Patent Owner’s construction of “stretching” as “make taut” should be rejected because it would render superfluous the “sustaining” requirement in that any “center pole” that makes taut a tent’s roof would also sustain it. Cf. PO Sur-reply 5. types of ribs 20 and 30.” (emphasis added)), 3:23–24 (discussing how “the center pole ribs 30 are fully stretched by the support links 40” (emphasis added)), 3:29–30 (discussing “[w]hen the tent is pitched with the frame being fully stretched as described above” (emphasis added)), 4:12–14 (“When the frame is stretched so as to pitch a tent, the center pole is fully moved upwardly along with the center pole ribs.” (emphasis added)). These instances do not align with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “stretching” as in “tension” or “make taut.” We find particularly supportive of the above-determined construction that in one of those six instances, the Specification directly contrasts—using a disjunctive “or”—“stretchable” with “collapsible.” See Ex. 1001, 3:4–6 (discussing how “the collapsible tent frame of this invention is easily and quickly stretchable or collapsible, thus allowing a user to easily and quickly pitch or strike a tent” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record developed at trial, we determine that the increased total ceiling height—i.e., “headroom” as used in the Petition—provides adequate “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” based on the proposed modification. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Here, the unmodified version of Yang is most similar to the middle example in Petitioner’s graphic above, as it has no structure underneath the tent roof (as roof support bars 7 and groove joints 6 are essentially at the height of the canopy itself). Compare Pet. Reply 20, with Ex. 1004, Fig. 4. The modified device—Yang modified with apex portion 50 of Lynch—is most similar to the rightmost example in Petitioner’s graphic, as the height of the canopy has been increased at least somewhat as compared to the middle example. See Pet. Reply 20; see also PO Resp. 24 (acknowledging that the proposed modification would “increase the height of the roof (the ceiling height)”). The record supports that this increased total ceiling height—even if only for certain locations where a person might stand—would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yang based on Lynch as proposed. This determination is supported by the testimony of Dr. Klopp, who states that “[i]ncreased headroom in some places under a tent is desirable for stationary users, especially for users of above average height.” Klopp Reply Decl. ¶ 113, cited at Pet. Reply 19.” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 5,944,040 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 5,944,040

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.