• Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. v. P2i Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00380 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, and 9–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cohen and Legein or Francesch and Legein; Petitioner’s motion to strike is denied as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field of the ’087 patent in June 20154 “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a field such as chemistry, physics, or chemical engineering, as well as at least two years of experience with plasma-polymerization techniques.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 22–29); PO Resp. 13 (Patent Owner stating that it “does not dispute this characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also PO Sur-reply 1–2 (noting both parties’ agreement on the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan).” slip op. at 7

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

    “On the fully developed trial record, we determine that no claims need an express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Because of Patent Owner’s shifting definitions of the education and experience level of the ordinarily skilled artisan, it is unclear on the complete record what precise definition Patent Owner and Dr. Senkevitch are applying when arguing the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 52–55, 60, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80–86, 89, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102–105, 108, 110, 111, 113–116, 118–120, 122, 124, 127–134. We, therefore, give Dr. Senkevitch’s testimony regarding the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art minimal weight, which leaves us with Patent Owner’s insufficiently supported arguments regarding the skilled artisan’s capabilities. PO Resp. 13, 22–27, 31–32, 34–40; PO Sur-reply 1–6, 11–13. Moreover, as Petitioner correctly points out, the ʼ087 patent expressly teaches that the precise conditions for forming a protective polymeric coating “will vary depending upon factors such as, without limitation, the nature of the monomer compound, the crosslinking agent, the substrate, as well as the desired properties of the coating” and that such “conditions can be determined using routine methods.” Ex. 1001 15:1–15:5 (emphasis added); Pet. Reply 17. Where the patent itself leaves to the judgment of an ordinarily skilled artisan the assessment of these factors to ascertain suitable conditions for forming the protective coating, we find persuasive Petitioner’s view that it would have been well within the level of ordinary skill to ascertain such suitable conditions.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claims of the ʼ087 patent recite obtaining the protective cross-linked polymeric coating “by exposing the device or component to a plasma,” the field of endeavor analysis in an analogous art inquiry does not exclusively turn on the claims at issue, but rather takes account of the entirety of a patent’s disclosure. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that “the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims” (emphasis added)); In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (rejecting an argument that the field of endeavor was limited to a claimed “Internet terminal” when “the specification describes various communication media, including facsimile machines and email, as related to the invention.”). This is significant here because the ʼ087 patent discloses that “[t]he … invention relates to protective coatings” and specifically “relates to protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof, and methods of forming such coatings.” Ex. 1001, 1:14–17. Based on this disclosure, we find that the ʼ087 patent’s field of endeavor relates to “protective coatings for electronic or electrical devices and components thereof” broadly, not just those formed on such devices or components via a plasma polymerization process as asserted by Patent Owner. Id. Although Cohen does not explicitly disclose that its crosslinked polymers constitute a “protective coating,” Cohen does disclose that its “copolymerizable mixture can be cast into films” (Ex. 1004, 2:61–62), that the polymerization can “effected in situ,” and that the polymers may be used in “numerous” electrical applications (id. at 5:17–25). Tr. 8:9–10:2, 27:2– 21; see Pet. Reply 5 (explaining how “Cohen described insulating polymers that could be applied as films and be used to protect substrates including cables and electrical coils.” (citing Ex. 1004, 2:60–63, 5:13–25)). These disclosures suggest strongly that Cohen’s crosslinked polymers––if cast into a film or formed in situ on an electrical device or component––would serve as a protective coating on that electrical device or component, even though Cohen does not expressly refer to its crosslinked polymers ipsis verbis as a “protective coating.” Thus, we find that Cohen is within the field of endeavor of the ʼ087 patent.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 11,041,087 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,041,087
• Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00139 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the CAB Website and CAB Whitepaper; the Board did not reach the other instituted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “would have had a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design” and “the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa.” Pet. 23. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contended Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill is too high. Prelim. Resp. 32. According to Patent Owner, a POSITA would have had “an associate degree in an engineering discipline, and 1–2 years’ experience in electrical power systems” and “[a] lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Our Institution Decision states that we preliminarily determined a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. Inst. Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner’s Response states that Patent Owner applies the Board’s 9 The parties have not directed our attention to any objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. preliminary determination (PO Resp. 6, n.3), and Petitioner did not subsequently address the issue. Based on the full record, we determine a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in an engineering discipline and two years of experience in electrical power systems. We are satisfied that this comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’291 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “the cable hangers (which support the current wires, data wires and other wires). That is, a single multi-function line supports the cable hangers, as a messenger wire, and provides a current path, as a grounding conductor.” Ex. 1001, 2:33–37 (emphasis added). And the sentence following that passage, which is cited by both parties, states: “Accordingly, as used herein, a ‘multi-function line’ means a tension member that supports current wires and/or cable hangers, and, which is conductive.” Ex. 1001, 2:37–40 (emphasis added). The sentences immediately following that sentence provide additional context, stating: “That is, a messenger wire is not a ‘multi-function line.’ Similarly, a conductor that does not support other constructs is not a ‘multi-function line.’” Ex. 1001, 2:40–42 (emphasis added). Thus, the specification indicates that a multi-function line is a tension member, “is conductive,” and supports other constructs such as current wires and/or cable hangers. In contrast, the specification does not mention “effective ground fault current path.”” slip op. at 10

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

    “Based on the entire record, Petitioner shows that the combination of the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper satisfy the limitations of claim 1. We also agree with Petitioner that a POSITA would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings, at least because the CAB Website expressly refers to the CAB Whitepaper, suggesting to a POSITA that the references’ teachings should be considered together. Pet. 47–48; see Reply 6–8.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for patent owner

    “First, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not shown that the cited products are coextensive with, and have the required nexus between, the products and claim 1. See Reply 18–29. Even if Patent Owner sells an “Integrated Grounding System” that satisfies each limitation of claim 1, that system is undeniably comprised of “various” “exemplary” interchangeable parts that have uses outside of the claimed invention, that at least purportedly relate to many other of Patent Owner’s patents, and that were known in the prior art. E.g., Ex. 2064, ¶ 304 (identifying “exemplary” product part numbers, including CAB-9605, CAB-9705, CAB-9760, and CAB-9607), n.10; App’x A, A5 (identifying a part number “representative” part the “mid-pier kit”); Ex. 1049, 6–7 (identifying Patent Owner’s patent’s relating to different part numbers). For example, Patent Owner identifies two patent numbers purportedly protecting its “grounding Mid Pier Kit,” the ’551 patent and US Pat. No. 10,461,518. Ex. 1049, 6–7. Patent Owner identifies three of its patents as protecting its copper messenger wire, part number CAB-9605: (i) the ’551 patent, (ii) US Pat. No. 10,461,518, and (iii) US Pat. No. 10,811,859. Id. And Patent Owner identifies eight different patents, but not the ’551 patent, as protecting the cited cable hangers, CAB- 9760. Id. And as explained in the analysis above, all of these parts were known and available in the prior art, as evidenced by the CAB Website and the CAB Whitepaper. We can discern no nexus between the features of the ’551 patent and the alleged objective evidence of nonobviousness given that the so-called “Integrated System” includes multiple, interchangeable, and “exemplary” part numbers that were known in the prior art. See Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“But our case law makes clear that objective evidence of nonobviousness lacks a nexus if it exclusively relates to a feature that was known in the prior art—not necessarily well-known.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enters., Inc., 632 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“If commercial success is due to an element in the prior art, no nexus exists.”).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,177,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,177,551
• Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Almy; the Board did not reach the alternative Caveney grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7

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

    “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We agree with Petitioner that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 recite an intended use. The bodies of both claims recite a structurally complete system comprising a messenger wire and a plurality of cable hangers that are disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire and have a plurality of cable carrying surfaces structured to support at least one electrical cable of the plurality of electrical cables and are separated by a cable carrier divider. Ex. 1001, 10:27–37. According to the preambles, the system are used “for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels.” Id. at 10:24–26. slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction “only replaces ‘organizing’ with ‘separating’” and “organizing” has a broader ordinary meaning than separating and includes “to arrange or order” not merely to separate. Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1052, 1053); id. at 5 (“Separated cables may be organized. But not all organized cables are necessarily separated.”). We adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of “organizing” as “to arrange or order.” Reply 4. This meaning is consistent with the preamble language of “[a] system for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels” comprising a messenger wire and cable hangers disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire with cable carrying surfaces that support electrical cables separated by a divider. Ex. 1001, 10:24–37. The system organizes electrical cables by (1) suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers, (2) supporting the cables on cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, and (3) separating the cables on adjacent cable carrying surfaces of the cable hangers by using a divider. The “organizing” in the preamble encompasses each of these ways of arranging or ordering the electrical cables but is not limited to any particular way of doing so and merely recites an intended use of the systems. Because we interpret the preamble as reciting an intended use of the systems, we also interpret this portion of the preamble as an intended use of those systems. Our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s interpretation that organizing means separating because the combination of Almy and Carr renders obvious a system for organizing electrical cables extending from solar panels by suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers that also separate the cables, as discussed infra in Section II.D. See Reply 12 n.4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced Almy’s wire loops with Carr’s hangers to prevent cross-induction because Almy discloses only DC power cables that extend from the photovoltaic (PV) modules to a combiner box and inverter that converts DC current to AC current without disclosing AC cables or data cables in close proximity to Almy’s DC cables that could create a cross-induction effect. PO Resp. 39– 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 15, 34, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 153, 154, 157–160, 163; Ex. 2004, 85:23–86:2, 148:9–14, 154:12–19). We disagree. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have used Carr’s cable hangers to organize electrical cables in Almy’s solar power system and prevent cross-induction between AC, DC, and/or data cables. Pet. 45–46; Reply 12–13; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55. A skilled artisan would know that Carr’s cable hangers would improve Almy’s solar power system by supporting AC, DC, and/or data cables without cross-induction. Pet. 46; Reply 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48, 96–99; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34, 2:15–27, Fig. 1. Carr’s hangers would satisfy regulations requiring AC and DC cables to be separated. Reply 13. Because Almy’s wire loops cannot comply with NEC regulations that require the separation of AC, DC, and data cables, they limit the ability of Almy’s system to power trackers with AC current to move PV modules to track the sun and obtain maximum power. Ex. 1001, 1:20–56; PO Resp. 7–8 (describing the solar industry trend to use trackers and NEC rules requiring separation of AC, DC, and signal cables for such systems). Carr’s hangers would enable Almy’s solar power system to organize AC, DC, and data cables for solar panels and trackers on a single messenger wire to increase efficiency, comply with NEC rules, prevent cross induction, and avoid the costs of trenching and cable trays. Reply 12–13; Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34 (Carr’s cable hangers separate arial conducting cables to minimize cross induction); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–36 (describing the benefits of separating electrical cables with hangers), 48, 96–98 (wire loops cannot prevent cross induction between current- and non-current-carrying cables as hangers do); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55 (NEC rules require separation of AC, DC, and signal cables); see Metso Mins., Inc. v Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., 526 F. App’x 988, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a motivation to combine to create a solution that complies with road permit regulations). Carr’s hangers would provide a simple, robust means to support and separate current- and non-current-carrying cables to prevent cross induction without deforming under load in Almy’s solar power system. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an implicit motivation to combine exists when a combination produces a stronger, cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, and/or more efficient product); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32 (IEEE Standard 142 and NSC Rule 235G require spacing of current-carrying and data cables to avoid cross-linking), 42 (2014 NEC spacing requirements), 96–99 (Carr’s hangers support and space conducting cables to prevent cross-linking).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 11,349,291 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,349,291
• Adb Safegate Sweden AB / Adb Safegate BV et al. v. Honeywell International Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 12, 2025 · PGR2023-00053 · APJ James P Calve · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable under § 101; claims 1, 6–10, and 13–20 are also unpatentable over Berkmo, and claims 1–20 over Berkmo and Richman.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have “held at least a degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a similar discipline, with at least two years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing, planning, or implementing sensor networks using LIDAR, radar and/or cameras and corresponding data analysis” and “[a]dditional work or research experience can substitute for less or different education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18– 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 14. Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested level of ordinary skill as articulated above. Petitioner’s description appears to be consistent with the prior art cited and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’349 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We reject Patent Owner’s interpretation because it limits the claims to an exemplary embodiment that “can, for example, provide the remaining distance and the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path” (Ex. 1001, 10:8–11), and it reads limitations of that embodiment into the claims. Absent a lexicographic definition or a disavowal, such claim interpretations are not permissible. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312, 1316 (claims are given their ordinary, customary meaning in the context of the entire patent and the specification absent a lexicographic definition or a disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor); Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’”) (citation omitted). Patent Owner has not asserted a definition or a disclaimer to support its interpretation. PO Resp. 16–17. The parties agree that “directional guidance” includes “navigational instructions” and “maneuvering guidance information.” PO Resp. 16 (“the claims make clear that this guidance refers to the navigational instructions to be provided to the pilot guiding the airplane”), 17 (a skilled artisan “reading the challenged claims in light of the specification would understand that ‘directional guidance’ refers to navigational instructions including the horizontal deviation with respect to the center line of a path”); Reply 21 (Berkmo teaches providing “pilot maneuvering guidance information . . . for aiding a pilot of the approaching aircraft towards [a] parking position”); Pet. 54 (Berkmo provides maneuvering guidance information). We interpret “directional guidance” as navigational instructions and maneuvering guidance information. This interpretation is consistent with the claims, which do not recite features of “directional guidance,” much less a horizontal deviation with respect to a center line as Patent Owner asserts.” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the merging recites mental processes because the algorithms described in the specification (Ex. 1001, 8:50–9:10) can be performed as mental processes. Pet. 20–22; Reply 9–11; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–58; Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1351–52, 1353–54 (receiving time stamped synchronized phasor measurements at different points of an electric power grid and analyzing and updating the measurements in real time using limits, sensitivities, and rates of change of dynamic stability metrics derived from voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes recite mental processes); id. at 1354 (analyzing data by mental steps or mathematical algorithms is an abstract mental process). Merging data by transforming and converting it from one format to another is an abstract idea. See AI Visualize, Inc. v Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 97 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“But ‘converting information from one format to another . . . is an abstract idea.’” (citation omitted); creating virtual views in real time by “creating the requested frames of the requested views from the volume visualization dataset” created a virtual view from the existing volume visualization dataset as “abstract data manipulation”); Hawk Tech. Sys., LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the method receives, displays, converts, stores, and transmits digital video data using result-based functional language); FICEP Corp. v. Peddinghaus Corp., No. 2022-1590, 2023 WL 5346043, *3–4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2023) (the focus of the advance is on automating the identification, extraction, and transfer of a 3D rendering of an object by a CAD design model including dimensions and intersection parameters without specifying how intersection parameter data was generated or used to create a design model and therefore encompasses a human deriving intersection parameters and adding this data to the design model for extraction); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A] process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”) (quoting Parker v Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) (“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”)); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) (mathematical relationships include converting binary coded decimal numerals to pure binary numerals as did the claims in Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972)); see also Tr. 22:24–25:23.” slip op. at 20

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “The ordered combination of elements recites no more than when the elements are considered individually and thus does not provide an inventive concept. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “[w]hen considered individually or in combination with the other claimed elements, the reliance on this merged data from a camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor is itself an inventive concept because it was not conventional and improves the technology of aircraft tracking and guidance.” PO Resp. 49–50. Merging data from two different sensors is part of the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept that makes that abstract idea patent eligible. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291–92; Guidance at 56. “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91. “It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” Id. at 1290. Even if merging camera and LIDAR/RADAR sensor data is treated as an additional element, the description of the point cloud process and iterated point cloud algorithm indicates Patent Owner did not invent or improve the merging process. Ex. 1001, 8:64–9:40; MPEP § 2106.05(d)I.2. (a generic description indicates that elements are conventional enough that no further description is needed to satisfy § 112(a)); see AI Visualize, 97 F.4th at 1379 (converting data from one format to another is an abstract idea); Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 836 F. App’x 900, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (encoding and decoding image data and converting data formats are abstract ideas). Dr. Campbell and Mr. Wilson testify that merging data is known for detecting and tracking objects and navigation. Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 41–51, 56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–65, 81–87; Ex. 1045, 20:6–23:18. A “data fusion process” is not claimed, much less one of any particular features. See PO Resp. 50. Nor do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of sensors. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–67, 83; iLife, 839 F. App’x at 538 (because sensors for measuring static and dynamic acceleration were known, and claim 1 did not recite unconventional means for processing that data, sensing and processing the static and dynamic acceleration information using generic components did not transform the nature of claim 1 into patent eligible subject matter).” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,538,349 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,538,349
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01344 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1, 3–7, 11–13, and 15–17 over Sinharoy; claims 2 and 10 over Sinharoy and Xu; and all challenged claims under the listed Tang grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In the Institution Decision we determined Petitioner’s description was consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of that decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 10–11. Now Patent Owner argues for a “more precise definition” offered in the Horst Declaration and adopted in the Brogioli Declaration. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 25). effects any patentability issue. The only difference between the two is the addition of “two years of experience working with multicore processor systems, central processing unit (CPU) , cache, and memory systems” as the experience level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–11 (citing Pet. 8) and Ex. 1007 ¶ 30 and Ex. 2001 ¶ 25. No mention of the difference between the two levels of ordinary skill is made in any of the papers filed. Regardless, inasmuch as both experts agree to the level of ordinary skill, we find the experience associated with the level of ordinary skill is “two years of experience working with multicore processor systems, central processing unit (CPU) , cache, and memory systems.” The level of education is unchanged from the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We are not persuaded to change our preliminary construction. First, Patent Owner misstates our construction of “single caching agent” by adding the language “each associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of cores.” That language is present in the claim as a separate limitation. See Section I.E (limitation [1g]) above. This added language is not present in our preliminary construction, which states only that a “single caching agent” means “one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.” Inst. Dec. 12. Thus, that each “single caching agent” is “associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of cores” is a separate limitation. Second, none of the above citations to the ’895 patent is contrary to our construction. Our construction states that a “single caching agent” is recited. That is what is repeated in Patent Owner’s citations. Third, the ’895 patent’s description of Figure 6 explains that a “single caching agent” may be formed from distributed portions, as do the claim limitations in question. See Ex. 1001, 6:35–37. Other than tacking on the second recitation of “distributed portions” to the “single caching agent” portions” part of our construction is incorrect. The Brogioli Declaration repeats the above citations to the ’895 patent” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “In an IPR, the petitioner bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a particular document is a printed publication.” Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F. 3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “A reference will be considered publicly accessible if it was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence can locate it.” Medtronic, 891 F.3d at 1380 (citations, quotations, and alterations omitted). The evidence of record supports our finding that Xu was publicly available at an IEEE conference occurring from November 14 through 15, 2011. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 8–11, Ex. A (Xu). Xu has a copyright date of 2011 which, although not dispositive of the date of public accessibility, is relevant evidence of public accessibility at the conference. Ex. 1005, 1. Exhibit 1014 confirms the conference dates of November 14–15, 2011, which antedates the December 31, 2011, critical data that Patent Owner asserts for the ’895 patent (PO Resp. 26; see Reply 13–14) and the December 13, 2011, priority date of the ’895 patent (Ex. 1001, at code [63], 1:5–7). Ex. 1014. Whether or not Exhibit 1019 is hearsay or authenticated, the MacPherson Declaration and IEEE Explore evidence is sufficient to show that Xu was available at the November 14–15, 2011 conference. The Motion to exclude Exhibit 1019 is denied as moot. slip op. at 41

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “The evidence of record supports our finding that Xu was publicly available at an IEEE conference occurring from November 14 through 15, 2011. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 8–11, Ex. A (Xu). Xu has a copyright date of 2011 which, although not dispositive of the date of public accessibility, is relevant evidence of public accessibility at the conference. Ex. 1005, 1. Exhibit 1014 confirms the conference dates of November 14–15, 2011, which antedates the December 31, 2011, critical data that Patent Owner asserts for the ’895 patent (PO Resp. 26; see Reply 13–14) and the December 13, 2011, priority date of the ’895 patent (Ex. 1001, at code [63], 1:5–7). Ex. 1014. Whether or not Exhibit 1019 is hearsay or authenticated, the MacPherson Declaration and IEEE Explore evidence is sufficient to show that Xu was available at the November 14–15, 2011 conference. The Motion to exclude Exhibit 1019 is denied as moot.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,575,895 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,575,895
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01164 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–7 and 10–20 over Morris and Ray, and claims 8, 9, and 18 over Morris, Ray, and Cox.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that it comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’375 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 27 n.8. Moreover, all of our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that the claim term “exercise use data” needs to be construed to resolve the issues raised by Petitioner. PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner asserts that exercise use data is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” Id.; Ex. 2004 ¶ 32. Petitioner disagreed with this proposed construction in its briefing (Pet. Reply 1–5) but adopted it during the oral hearing (Tr. 14:12–15:17). The parties also agree that “exercise use data” includes time, distance, and calories of a user exercising on an exercise apparatus. PO Resp. 4–5, 14; Pet. Reply 3–4. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s proposed construction. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction. As a result, we do not need to construe this claim term further.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions. See PO Resp. We find that Petitioner has established that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit exercise data to a remote location, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 16–19, 27–28; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 137–147, 161–163; Ex. 1004, 5:27–29, 7:11–22, 9:55–57; Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (cautioning Patent Owner that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived).” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered the testimony of Mr. van der Weide, who agrees with Patent Owner (see Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 35, 45–52), but we give his testimony on these points little weight. Mr. van der Weide discusses Mr. Rawls’ testimony, but he does not meaningfully discuss Ray’s disclosures. See id. As a result, he does not reconcile his opinions with the apparently conflicting portions of Ray. In addition, Mr. van der Weide’s testimony is conclusory because he does not identify evidence or reasoning sufficient to support his opinion that Ray fails to teach or suggest these aspects of the claim as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,796,375 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,796,375
• Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Johnson Health Tech Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2024 · IPR2023-01165 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Morris and Ray; the Board did not reach the alternative Ray–AAPA and Yi grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’340 patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner’s proposal adds “analyzing” and removes “cardiovascular,” but we agree with Petitioner that these differences are immaterial to this proceeding. See Pet. Reply 29 n.12. Moreover, our analysis in this Decision would remain the same under Patent Owner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner contends it means “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” PO Resp. 4. According to Patent Owner, the Specification of the ’340 patent defines this term. Id. at 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001,6 1:43–46, 6:33–34, claims 4, 5, 17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 33). In its briefing, Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s proposed construction, arguing that it is “overly narrow . . . and arbitrarily excludes other forms of ‘exercise use data.’” Pet. Reply 1–2; see id. at 1–5 (further contesting Patent Owner’s proposed construction). However, during the oral hearing, Petitioner adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Tr. 14:12–15:17. For purposes of this proceeding, we apply Patent Owner’s narrower construction and assume that “exercise use data” is “data that would represent an amount of exercise of the user.” We do not need to further construe this term because Petitioner shows that the Challenged Claims are unpatentable even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve Morris’ treadmill by adding Ray’s camera, software instructions for validating user exercise data, its functionality of displaying a motivational image, and its ability to transmit 8 By not challenging Petitioner’s contentions as to motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, we also find that Patent Owner has waived any argument contesting these contentions. See Paper 8 (Scheduling Order), 9 (“Patent Owner is cautioned that any arguments not raised in the response may be deemed waived.”). exercise data to a remote location, and that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the combination proposed for the reasons explained by Petitioner, as set forth above.” slip op. at 23

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

    “are contradictory and we also disagree with Patent Owner that Ray teaches away from “maintain[ing] communication between the exercise apparatus and the remote location while the user is determined by the controller not to be engaged with the operating member” as recited in claim 7. On the former point, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “improperly equates generation and reporting of exercise use data with maintaining a connection with a remote location.” See Pet. Reply 20. Petitioner previously asserted that generation and reporting of the data would stop when Ray does not detect a user, but this does not mean that the connection would also be stopped. On the latter point, “[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 fails to point to anything in Ray that discourages or would otherwise lead one of ordinary skill in the art away from maintaining a connection with a remote location when exercise use data is not reported at that precise moment. Rather, Petitioner provides a reason with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to maintain the connection—“to avoid delays in trying to re-establish the connection once the user had come back.” Pet. 39. That position is supported by the testimony of Mr. Rawls. Ex. 1002 ¶ 186.” slip op. at 53

  Patent outcomesUS 11,227,340 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,227,340
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00459 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 10–31 are unpatentable under §103 over the asserted combinations involving Chandra or Keohane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties substantially agree on the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering (or equivalent experience) and . . . at least two years’ practical experience with computer networking and computer security.” Pet. 19. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner asserts that its positions would be the same under either proposal. Id. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposal as more consistent with the prior art and the ’825 patent, but our decision would be the same under either formulation.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “claims 1, 15, 21, and 27 recite methods in which a first network security appliance of a CSF receives network traffic to inspect, determines whether the traffic was transmitted from a second network security appliance that executed security operations on the traffic, determines network security operations for the first network security appliance to execute based on any security operations executed by the second network security appliance, and executes operations on the traffic. Ex. 1001, 10:58–11:17, 12:31–60, 13:20– 47, 14:13–37. As claimed, network traffic may travel in one direction from a second network security appliance to a first network security appliance. The ’825 patent describes unidirectional traffic as “one embodiment” of the CSF. A first network security appliance receives incoming network traffic and determines if the incoming network traffic is transmitted from a second network security appliance based on the source address of the traffic and determines operations that the second network security appliance executed. Ex. 1001, 2:48–56. In this embodiment, traffic travels in a single incoming direction between network security appliances. Tr. 30:22–31:18. The ’825 patent also describes the “cooperation” in a CSF as “[t]he network packet carrying the flag is transmitted to another member node at the next hop.” Ex. 1001, 6:28–34 (emphasis added); id. at 8:3–8. Traffic always flows from one hop to a next hop along the same path between root 220 at the edge of the network and each particular endpoint (leaf) shown in Figure 2 below. Traffic does not flow along different interconnected paths when it travels from root 220 to an endpoint leaf 240a–240d, 250 as Patent Owner asserts is required of a CSF. PO Resp. 13–15. Figure 2 is “an exemplary topology of a cooperative security fabric (CSF)” with Patent Owner’s annotation of network traffic paths. Ex. 1001, 2:29–31; PO Resp. 16. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to branch 230a to leaf 240a to the blue end node. Traffic travels along a single path from root 220 to leaf 250 to the red end node. Traffic from the green node travels along a single path to leaf 240d to branch 230b to root 220. Network security appliances only cooperate along a single red, green,” slip op. at 10

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

    “(3) Analysis We agree with Petitioner that “the claims only require two appliances and traffic to go from one appliance to the other.” Reply 11. Nothing in the claims or element 1[a] requires network traffic to originate from outside the private network or the CSF. Dr. Black testifies that the background of the ’825 patent describes a need for a CSF to coordinate operations performed on network traffic that is “transmitted to/from the network” to avoid or reduce redundant operations among members of the CSF” (Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 44, 50), but Dr. Black describes the claimed network fabric and CSF entirely in the context of controlling network traffic transmitted within the enterprise network topology 200 as illustrated in Figure 2 of the ’825 patent (id. ¶ 52), which we discussed in Section II.B.1. supra and reproduce again below. In Figure 2, Patent Owner annotates paths taken by network traffic within network topology 200 comprising root 220, branches 230a, 230b, and leaves 240a–d, 250 within network 200. PO Resp. 16–17; Ex. 2004 ¶ 52. In addition, Chandra’s network 102 is “a collection of individual networks, interconnected with each other and functioning as a single large network.”7 Ex. 1004 ¶ 21. Network 102 can include LANs, WANs, and/or MANs. Id. As a result, network devices 104 located in different networks of network 102 transmit to one another via edge network links 218 within this internetwork of networks 102. Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 21–30, Figs. 1, 2; Pet. 22–26. Transmitting and receiving CEs 208, 214 are security-based devices at the edges of different networks in network 102 to control incoming network traffic sent between transmitting and receiving network devices 206, 212 located in different networks. Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. A plurality of CEs can be associated with a single PE to receive incoming network traffic from a transmitting CE. Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Thus, network traffic is transmitted from network devices 104 connected to a plurality of CEs that connect to other CEs via edge network link 218 and to other network devices 104 connected to those CEs “along multiple interconnected paths” (see id. ¶¶ 28–30) that satisfies Patent Owner’s definition of CSF (PO Resp. 13). The sending and receiving CEs “constitute multiple cooperating network security appliances” contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 38), as do CEs 208, 214.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Buruganahalli’s topology of devices 50, 52, 54 coordinates security operations that they perform on network data 58 sent from network device 54 to network device 52 to network device 50 from one hop to the next hop. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–32, 34–36, 38–40, 46–48, Fig. 3. We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious to update Chandra’s metadata tag for a multi-CE path to indicate actions taken, as Buruganahalli teaches, to reduce latency and resource waste. Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 28)). Dr. Franz testifies it would have been obvious to arrange Chandra’s different network security appliance CEs in series so that traffic passed through multiple CEs that performed different security functions in a CSF before reaching a receiving PE, as Chandra and Buruganahalli teach or suggest. Ex. 1019 ¶ 60 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 122, 125). Patent Owner’s argument that the CEs are not in series does not address Petitioner’s contention that it would have been obvious to place them in series, as Buruganahalli discloses, to perform different security operations on network traffic. Pet. 54; Ex. 1019 ¶ 60; Cf. Sur-reply 20–21. Petitioner contends that Chandra’s system also transmits data packets with updated labels to devices in an extended virtual private network (VPN) shown in Figure 8. Pet. 54. Petitioner asserts it was well known to connect a private network of a remote company site to another network such as an enterprise network using a VPN tunnel, and it would have been obvious to attach the VPN in Figure 8 to a private network as an extension of Figure 2’s private network. Pet. 54–56. Petitioner contends that, in such instances, a receiving CE would transmit data packets with the updated label to a receiving device in an extended network using the transmitting and receiving end configurations shown in Figures 2 and 8 of Chandra. Id. at 54. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to connect Chandra’s Figure 2 private network to Chandra’s Figure 8 VPN network to extend enterprise network communications so the next device in the extended VPN network would be “a next network appliance participating in the CSF” as claimed. Pet. 54–56; Reply 26–27 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). We also agree with Dr. Franz who testifies: Contrary to the PO’s assertion that “Petitioner…provides no rationale for why a POSITA would modify Chandra by combining Figures 2 and 8, or explain why a POSITA would reasonably expect it to succeed (POR, 45),” I provided ample reasons why a POSITA would have found it obvious that the VPN in Chandra’s Figure 8 could be attached as an extension to the private network in Chandra’s Figure 2 as illustrated below. In fact, I provided an example of a widely circulated official publication by the U.S. National Security Agency containing a reference architecture that recommended cascading multiple VPN solutions for added security. (Franz. Decl. ¶126-130.) Ex. 1019 ¶ 62 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 126–130).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,084,825 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,084,825
• Netskope, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00458 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 are unpatentable under § 103 over the five asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2020) as to the patentability of the claims on which we instituted trial. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claims. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 21–27 of the ’678 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelOther

    “II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a B.S. in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, with at least two years’ experience in computer networking/security.” Pet. 15. Patent Owner asserts that a skilled artisan “would have had a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science, and two years of work or research experience in the fields of network and data security, or a Master’s degree in electrical engineering and/or computer science and one year of work or research experience in related fields.” PO Resp. 16–17 (the positions in the PO Response would be the same under either parties’ proposal). The parties’ proposals are substantially the same. Our decision and analysis would be the same under either party’s proposal.” slip op. at 6

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “c. Analysis The ’678 patent describes storage containers as “directories, directory structures, web directories, folders, . . . files and namespaces of the same.” Id. at 6:44–47; id. at 10:12–15. However, it discloses that data is “stored in the namespaces, directories, folders, files or other storage containers of one or more cloud platforms,” which seems to equate namespaces with storage containers. Id. at 9:23–25. In claim 6, “the step of configuring the namespaces comprises storing content of the file as filenames.” Id. at 20:20–22. One definition of “namespace” is a “grouping of one or more names that represent individual objects within the group in a shared computing environment, such as a network.” Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition 130 (Microsoft Press 2002) (Ex. 3001). “The names within a namespace are unique, are created according to the same rules, and can be resolved into a particular identifying item of information, such as an IP address or a network device.” Ex. 3001.” slip op. at 7

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

    “set of names available for naming things.’” Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 101; Ex. 1014 (Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms)); Tr. 5:18–20, 7:21– 8:1. This definition is consistent with the extrinsic evidence cited above. Patent Owner largely agrees with this proposed definition. Dr. Black testifies that “to the extent a namespace is applied to object identifiers, it will define the set of allowable identifiers within a particular context.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 69 (cited in PO Resp. 19). Dr. Black agrees with Dr. Lee’s testimony “that a directory named ‘documents’ is a namespace for the files within that directory––within that ‘documents’ namespace, files can be identified by simply referring to the file name, such as ‘foo.’” Id. ¶ 68. Patent Owner however, asserts that “a name itself (such as an identifier that identifies an object) is not a namespace.” PO Resp. 19. Patent Owner asserts that the ’678 patent provides “an example of creating a namespace for file chunks as part of the encryption process” as “each chunk can be encrypted based on public and private/secret keys defined by the encryption module 210” “where keys are managed based on user-assigned policies.” PO Resp. 20. Patent Owner asserts that “[t]hese policies therefore create a namespace that defines the naming convention for the file chunks (e.g. encryption based on a particular key).” Id. Patent Owner asserts that “storing the file chunks in a folder creates a namespace scope for the file chunks” and namespaces are configured by storing file content as file names. Id. (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 71); see Tr. 8:5–11, 11:2–12:11. d. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of “namespace” as “a set of names available for naming things.” Consistent with various exemplary embodiments described in the ’678 patent, the set of names available for naming things may be based on a policy that defines the naming convention for files or file chunks, and a namespace may be created by storing files or file chunks in a folder to create a namespace scope for the files or file chunks.” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,280,678 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,280,678
• Hum Industrial Technology, Inc. v. Amsted Rail Company, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00540 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 21–30, 36, and 37 are unpatentable as obvious; the Revised Motion to Amend is denied, and the Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelDecided for petitioner

    “G. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10

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

    “B. Other Claim Terms The parties do not dispute the construction of any other claim terms and we find that no other terms require express construction to resolve the controversy between the parties. Accordingly, we do not construe any other claim terms expressly. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 13

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

    “Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Armitage and Barone in the manner suggested. ix. Summary as to Claim 1 We find that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination accounts for the limitations of claim 1, and that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Armitage and Barone with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Armitage and Barone.” slip op. at 35

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “include selection of data along certain axes or combinations of axes measured by the accelerometer and ignoring unselected data, well-supported and entitled to substantial weight. See Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 4–6. We find Dr. Shamos’s testimony to the contrary, Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 40–42, inconsistent with the disclosure of the challenged patent, and entitled to little weight. Patent Owner argues that Armitage does not monitor all of the axes, like the ’915 patent. See Sur-reply 1–3. However, the ’915 patent, just like in Armitage, isolates the data from a single axis for further analysis. See Ex. 1001, 13:17–24. Thus, we do not find Patent Owner’s distinction to be persuasive. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown that Armitage accounts for this limitation.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 10,137,915 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,137,915

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.