• Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 15, 2024 · IPR2024-00746 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied for claims 1–9 and 12 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “processes the request formulated in step 1[f] because the application carries out processing in accordance with the request. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002, Schmandt Decl. ¶ 136 (as discussing Zadrozny’s conferencing schedule example)). Noting that a domain agent provides a functionality for a particular area or realm, such as a particular subject matter or device, Patent Owner argues that Coffman’s conversationally aware application does not teach limitation 1[g] because Coffman’s conversationally aware application does not process a request. Prelim. Resp. 29, 35–39. Noting that in Coffman, each application has its own context stack, Patent Owner argues that Coffman’s description of the context stack contents for various discourses does not support Petitioner’s theory that a conversationally aware application is invoked to process a user’s request. Id. at 37 (citing Ex, 1003, 27:1–2). As Patent Owner points out, calls to conversational sub-systems (see Ex. 1003, Fig. 2, 218, Fig. 4, 407) are hidden to the application. Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1003, 29:10–11), see also Ex. 1003, 29:7–9 (“CVM 401 will locate the requested conversational subsystem 407 (via the conversational subsystem services manager 406), drive its execution and return appropriately the results.”)). As a conversational subsystem, rather than a conversationally aware application executes the request, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Coffman discloses limitation 1[g]. d) Claim 1 conclusion In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not” slip op. at 29

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002, Schmandt Decl. ¶¶ 11–15). Patent Owner does not explicitly dispute Petitioner’s characterization of a person of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See 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). As Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill appears consistent with the technology of the ’209 patent and the references, we apply Petitioner’s characterization of an ordinarily skilled artisan for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Neither party has proposed a special definition or explicit construction of any claim term for purpose of this Decision. See Pet. 17 (“[e]xpress claim construction is unnecessary”); Prelim. Resp. 13 (“the Board need not engage in any pre-institution claim construction”). For purposes of this Decision, we understand Petitioner to propose that the claims be given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill under Phillips. 37 C.F.R. 42.104(b)(3).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “processes the request formulated in step 1[f] because the application carries out processing in accordance with the request. Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1002, Schmandt Decl. ¶ 136 (as discussing Zadrozny’s conferencing schedule example)). Noting that a domain agent provides a functionality for a particular area or realm, such as a particular subject matter or device, Patent Owner argues that Coffman’s conversationally aware application does not teach limitation 1[g] because Coffman’s conversationally aware application does not process a request. Prelim. Resp. 29, 35–39. Noting that in Coffman, each application has its own context stack, Patent Owner argues that Coffman’s description of the context stack contents for various discourses does not support Petitioner’s theory that a conversationally aware application is invoked to process a user’s request. Id. at 37 (citing Ex, 1003, 27:1–2). As Patent Owner points out, calls to conversational sub-systems (see Ex. 1003, Fig. 2, 218, Fig. 4, 407) are hidden to the application. Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1003, 29:10–11), see also Ex. 1003, 29:7–9 (“CVM 401 will locate the requested conversational subsystem 407 (via the conversational subsystem services manager 406), drive its execution and return appropriately the results.”)). As a conversational subsystem, rather than a conversationally aware application executes the request, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that Coffman discloses limitation 1[g]. d) Claim 1 conclusion In view of the above, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the combined teachings of Coffman, Kanevsky, Kneser, and that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in its challenge to claim 1 based on the combined teachings of these references.” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,398,209
• Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00751 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, failing to show Coffman identifies a domain agent associated with a matching context-stack entry.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). B. Legal Standards — Obviousness A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if made available in the record, which has not happened here. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8

  • BurdenDenied

    “institution of review, Petitioner’s contention that Coffman’s CVM 14 / 202 / 401 includes a processor that identifies a domain agent (i.e., one of Coffman’s conversationally aware applications 11) associated with an entry in a context stack (i.e., context stack 217 / 405) that matches information in a merged transcription of user inputs. Details are provided below, but in overview, we determine Coffman’s disclosure is too high-level and non-specific, and Mr. Schmandt’s supporting testimony is too conclusory, to justify institution here. See, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it “is conclusory and unsupported, [and] adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support”); 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 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached

    “IV. POTENTIAL DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of review, on the basis that the Examiner considered and commented on Coffman and Kennewick during prosecution of the ’607 patent, and Petitioner’s reliance on Ross (in Ground One) and Lee (in Ground Two) does not cure a deficiency of Coffman relating to merged transcriptions that was recognized by the Examiner. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4, 14, 44, 47–50. Petitioner provides opposing arguments. See Pet. 10–12. In light of our determination above to deny institution on the merits per 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not reach the § 325(d) issues raised by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “institution of review, Petitioner’s contention that Coffman’s CVM 14 / 202 / 401 includes a processor that identifies a domain agent (i.e., one of Coffman’s conversationally aware applications 11) associated with an entry in a context stack (i.e., context stack 217 / 405) that matches information in a merged transcription of user inputs. Details are provided below, but in overview, we determine Coffman’s disclosure is too high-level and non-specific, and Mr. Schmandt’s supporting testimony is too conclusory, to justify institution here. See, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it “is conclusory and unsupported, [and] adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support”); 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 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,447,607
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01098 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12, finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis based on the schedule in the district court’s docket control order. Ex. 2007. The fact that the time-to-trial statistics cited by Petitioner predict that a trial in May 2024 (Pet. 89), a date even earlier than the trial date set in the court’s docket control order, confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that diligence in filing the Petition “in advance of the one-year bar date and within four months of PO’s infringement contentions in the Texas Litigation” should weigh in favor of institution. Pet. 89. As the Texas Litigation is scheduled to go to trial in August 2024, approximately six months before a final written decision would be entered, we determine that Factor 2 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

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

    “Patent Owner persuasively argues that Odendaal’s planar coil is not a simple drop-in replacement for Okada’s tapped solenoid, as the Petition seems to suggest. Id. at 40. The Petition states only that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Okada to use a primary coil that is substantially planar and substantially parallel to the surface to expand or complement Okada’s thin-form charging applications. Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 138–139; Ex. 1005, Figs 1, 9, 10–16, ¶¶ 33–34, 116– 146). Petitioner’s argument that reducing the distance between primary and secondary would promote close proximity couple, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time fails to address salient issues underlying the combination. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Baker Decl. ¶¶ 50–53, 138–139; Ex. 1008, 2:29–44; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 66–68, 112, Figs. 4(a)–4(b); Ex. 1036, 24:19– 22). Although Okada is premised on a multi-section primary coil, the Petition does not identify any multi-tap planar coil or explain why a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to modify Odendaal’s planar coil to add taps to it. Moreover, the Petition does not explain how a person of ordinary skill attempting to exchange Okada’s multi-section solenoid coil with a planar coil could add multiple taps to said primary coil to create multiple sections and access those sections. As Patent Owner points out, utilizing multi-tap solenoid coils, Okada relies on detection of the degree of coupling/alignment between the communication section of the primary side of the coil and a secondary coil to determine whether there is correct alignment for power delivery sections of the primary and secondary sections of the coil. See Prelim. Resp. 38. The Petition does not address how of Okada. On this record it appears that Petitioner’s proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Shimano, Inc. v. Globeride, Inc., IPR2015- 00273, Paper 40 at 12 (Final Written Decision) (PTAB Jun 16, 2016) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) as standing for the proposition that a case of obviousness is undermined if modifying the prior art would render that prior art inoperable for its intended purpose). In consideration of the above, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Okada and Odendaal.” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ordinarily skilled artisan”) as one having “at least a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or a similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with wireless charging systems, including, for example, inductive power transfer systems.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002, Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob Baker (“Baker Decl.”) ¶¶ 20–21). Petitioner further states that slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01099 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 21–26 because the Fintiv factors favored discretionary denial and the petition did not present compelling evidence of unpatentability.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied

    “It strikes us as inefficient to conduct, in parallel with the Texas Litigation, numerous inter partes reviews of the same seven patents. This is particularly the case here where the best available evidence indicates that the Texas Litigation will go to trial approximately six months prior to when a final written decision would be entered if inter partes review were to be instituted. Thus, this additional reason weighs in favor of discretionary denial. G. Fintiv Conclusion As a whole, the Fintiv factors weigh in favor of discretionary denial of the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard.” slip op. at 16

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

    “III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” Commscope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesNot reached

    “The Petition’s reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art allegedly would have made the proposed modification, i.e., “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices” (Pet. 20), is not persuasive. Rather, it appears, based on the record presented, that the proposed modification would render Okada’s primary-side coil inoperable for communicating carrier waves or controlling the level of power at which it induces a current in the secondary-side coil. See Ratti, 270 F.2d at 813 (A combination of references is “not a proper ground for rejection” where it “would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown [in the prior art] as well as a change in the basic principles under which [the prior art] construction was designed to operate.”); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (reversing BPAI decision affirming obviousness rejection where a proposed modification to the prior art would have “rendered [it] inoperable for its intended purpose”). For these reasons, the Petition does not present “compelling evidence of unpatentability.” Commscope at 4.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,462,942
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Mojo Mobility Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 6, 2024 · IPR2023-01096 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 20–23 and 30 because the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition lacked a compelling unpatentability challenge.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “NHK applies to the situation where the district court has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding. In a case where, in contrast to the facts present in NHK, the district court has set a trial date after the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding, the Board may be less likely to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on district court trial timing depending on other factors as set forth below. Fintiv at 3. The instant situation is the former one described above by Fintiv and to which “NHK applies.”” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “modif[ied] the Okada system to use ‘a receiver coil which has a substantially planar shape and is located parallel to a surface of the portable device’ (and complimented such a design with corresponding planar primary coil).” Pet. 21 (quoting claim 20). Petitioner states that the skilled artisan would have done so “to expand/compliment applications compatible with those contemplated by Okada to use thin(ner) devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶135). The cited declaration testimony repeats this statement and adds that the modification could reduce size and/or weight of a device and, due to the “close proximity of coupling,” could improve power transmission efficiency, reduce energy waste, and shorten charging time. Ex. 1002 ¶135.” slip op. at 22

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

    “the Petition, with factor 1 being neutral, factors 2, 3, 5, and 6 weighing in favor of discretionary denial and factor 4 weighing slightly against it. However, we “will not deny institution based on Fintiv if there is compelling evidence of unpatentability.” CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless Inc., No. IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (precedential) (“CommScope”). Thus, we now consider the merits of the Petition under this higher standard. III. ANALYSIS UNDER COMPELLING MERITS STANDARD “[T]he compelling merits standard is a higher standard than the standard for institution set by statute.” CommScope at 3 (referring to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)). “[W]hen determining whether there is a compelling unpatentability challenge, the Board evaluates whether the Petition presents challenges in which the evidence, if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Put another way, the compelling merits standard is satisfied “if it is highly likely that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim.” Id. at 4 (citation omitted). For the reasons explained below, the Petition fails to meet this standard.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art or provide its own description. Because Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art appears consistent with the ’371 patent and the asserted prior art, and because there is no argument to the contrary at this stage of the proceeding, we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,316,371
• Servicenow, Incorporated v. Inquisient IncorporatedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2024 · IPR2023-01073 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any challenged claim, including the independent claims’ class-module limitation.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2

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

    “argument does not change Petitioner’s recognition that the ’855 patent describes a data repository as including modules, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood a “module” to be a portion of a data repository. The ’855 patent includes an extensive discussion of tables and relationships between tables, but does not define the term “module.” In the ’855 patent, the term “module” appears in the claims; “module” also appears” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Althoff does not teach the claimed class module, i.e., a module (or table) configured to define at least one class of the plurality of elements (Althoff’s objects 101) and store that class. The claimed “data repository” is the relational database. See Pet. 13. However, Class 301 is part of the object database and is not translated into the relational database. As Patent Owner argues, Althoff teaches that the system “selects a class 101 in the user’s object database 100,” not the relational database. See Prelim. Resp. 27 [in FIG. 1] comprises a set of classes 101.”)). Patent Owner’s contention that there would be no reason to generate a class Class 301 table as Petitioner asserts is also persuasive. See Prelim. Resp. 29–30. As Patent Owner notes, by creating separate tables for each class, e.g., a Component table and a Manufacturer table, Althoff preserves the class information. Id. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions concerning a class Class 301 table fail because “if objects were already stored in a table in the object database, there would be no need for Althoff to build a translator to translate objects into tables.” Id. at 31. For at least the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown adequately at this stage of the proceeding that Althoff teaches or suggests limitation 1[c]. Moreover, Petitioner does not allege that Surjanto addresses the above-identified deficiencies of Althoff with respect to that limitation. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood it will succeed in its challenge to claim 1. We need not address the remaining limitations of claim 1 or Patent Owner’s arguments as to why those limitations have not been sufficiently shown. See Prelim. Resp. 34–40.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Petitioner’s Contentions Concerning Reasons to Combine Althoff and Surjanto Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine the teachings of Althoff and Surjanto to achieve the well-known benefits of Surjanto’s extensions, which were specifically designed to extend OO databases like Althoff’s to provide the known benefits of XML document support, such as “allow[ing] users to reuse and process textual portions of document contents,” “enabl[ing] collaborative development of documents” and in general “offer[ing] comprehensive content management functionality.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1008, 9; Ex. 1003 ¶ 61). be motivated to modify Althoff to include Surjanto’s XCoP extensions because of the well-known benefits of XML document support.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–164). Petitioner further identifies Surjanto as disclosing that XCoP allows “users to reuse and process textual portions of document contents.” Id. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s contention as to combining Althoff and Surjanto. We agree that Petitioner has demonstrated sufficient reasons for combining Althoff and Surjanto.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,224,855
• Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. Ati Technologies UlcInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 25, 2023 · IPR2023-00688 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7–12 were unpatentable over the asserted § 103 grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “institute an inter partes review. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” The Supreme Court has held that the Board, in a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314(b), may not institute review on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1355–56 (2018). Moreover, in accordance with our rules, “[w]hen instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (2020); see also PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (interpreting the statute to require “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”). Applying those standards, and upon considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’628 patent. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on this record, we adopt Dr. Manocha’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’628 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s purported motivation that the modification would “preserve the image fidelity of the texture” lacks sufficient reasoning and support. Importantly, we fail to see, and Petitioner provides inadequate explanation or support, why adding an additional level of partitioning above the 4x4 and 8x8 blocks would “preserve the image fidelity of the texture” any more than what FXT1 already does. See Pet. 57. We also decline to give weight to Petitioner’s expert declaration, which merely repeats this conclusory reasoning without providing any additional explanation or evidentiary support. 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.”). “Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Communs., Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, we find Petitioner’s reasoning and rational underpinning as to why FTX1 would be modified in the manner proposed to be lacking. Accordingly, because we find that Petitioner has failed to account for limitation 7(b), we find that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 7 would have been obvious in view of FXT1.” slip op. at 27

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

    “The Specification, however, supports Patent Owner’s construction. In the Background section, the Specification consistently uses the term “block” as a division of an image. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:67–2:3 (“The codebook entries are blocks of pixels of some size (typically 2×2 or larger). For each block of pixels in the original texture, an index is stored to the codebook entry that most closely approximates the block.”). Moreover, the Background section describes the prior-art DXTC technique as “a block-based texture compression scheme” that “explicitly stores two 16-bit colors per 4×4 pixel block.” Id. at 2:24–29. The Background section also describes FXT1, which Petitioner asserts in one of its challenges here, as “a competing compression scheme with DXTC,” which “essentially extends DXTC with some additional block types that can be mixed within any given image.” Id. at 2:46–48. The Specification also uses “block” in the same way in its “Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments.” Indeed, the Specification states that [T]he present invention further refines block-based image compression techniques such as DXTC with a flexible method for pre-compression partitioning of texture blocks. The pre-compression partitioning enhances image quality by flexibly selecting partitions suitable to the characteristics of the texture block being compressed, rather than adopting the one-size-fits-all approach suggested in other methods. Ex. 1001, 4:52–57; see also id. at 5:66–6:4 (noting “the present invention represents a further refinement of block-based texture compression schemes such as DXTC” and “the basic compression algorithm . . . divides or splits the image up into discrete blocks of pixels”). The Specification goes to reinforce the understanding of the term “block” as a division of the entire image. For example, when discussing the preferred embodiment, the Specification explains As with other block-based texture compression schemes, the original texture is then split or divided into original blocks of pixels according to step 305. Typically, the original block of pixels is a square or rectangular block—e.g., 4×4 or 8×8 pixel. The size of the original block of pixels is variable, and may be selected according to user needs, application demands and/or system capabilities. Id. at 6:20–26; see also id. at 9:12–13 (“[T]he texture is divided into blocks of 8x8 pixels for compression.”). Thus, we determine that the Specification consistently uses the term “block” to indicate a division of an image, not the image itself, which supports Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,184,628
• Current Lighting Solutions, LLC D/B/A GE Current v. Jiaxing Super Lighting Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2023 · IPR2023-00269 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the Li and Ono combinations did not establish a reasonable likelihood of showing the claimed component placement obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “In sum, weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has not persuasively addressed limitation 1[h]’s requirement for a “resistor which is positioned closest to the end wall” or limitation 30[h]’s requirement for a “capacitor which is positioned closest to the end wall.” b) Conclusion for Ground 1 Because Petitioner does not provide sufficiently persuasive arguments and evidence addressing limitations 1[h] and 30[h], we find Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness of independent claims 1 and 30. Additionally, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing dependent claims 2, 4–6, 31, 37, 88, and 90 do not cure the deficiencies in Petitioner’s challenge to independent claims 1 and 30. Pet. 36–43, 47–48. Accordingly, Petitioner also fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge of dependent claims 2, 4–6, 31, 37, 88, and 90.” slip op. at 27

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “to “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as 1-2 years of academic or industry experience in LED lighting design.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Petitioner also asserts that an ordinary artisan would have had “knowledge of LEDs and related technology for driving LEDs” and “would have been familiar with the field of technology” related to fluorescent lamps, their pre-heat process, increasing popularity of LED lamps, a need for heat dissipation and management in LED lamps, and end-cap openings used to lessen internal heat or pressure. Id. (citing id. at 6–11; Ex. 1002 ¶ 21). At this stage, Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, 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 ’989 patent. See also Ex. 1003 ¶ 21.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “asserting that it would have been obvious in view of Li and Ono to locate varistor R1 or capacitor C1 closest to an end wall. Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood heat-dissipation benefits of locating a resistor or capacitor closest to an end wall. Pet. 36, 47. In support of this, Petitioner relies on Dr. Ackley, who testifies as follows: a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that resistors are heat generating circuit elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to place the resistor closest to the end cap such that heat would be efficiently dissipated through heat dissipating functions in the end caps, such as ventilating holes. This placement would cool the resistor as well as minimize the effects of the resistor heating up other components on the PCB and improve the lifespan of the LED lamp. As an alternative to, or in addition to ventilation holes, the PCB could be placed in direct contact with the end cap. A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that heat is transferred to the end cap through this direct connection and would have been conducted out of the LED lamp to the outside environment directly through the end wall or through the conducting pins. Thus, it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to locate the (heat generating) resistor closest to the end cap. Ex. 1003 ¶ 100; see also id. ¶ 122 (similar testimony addressing placing capacitor closest to end wall). Patent Owner suggests that this testimony stems from improper hindsight based on the ’989 patent’s disclosure of heat-dissipation benefits of the claimed component locations. Prelim. Resp. 33–34. We determine that Petitioner’s rationale is insufficiently supported. Dr. Ackley provides no supporting evidence to corroborate his opinion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100, 122. And, as noted above, the ’989 patent describes LED tube lamp embodiments with a capacitor or resistor closest to an opening in the end wall, explaining that “the closest element will have better heat dissipation effect and this makes the LED tube lamp operate normally.” Id. at 3:55–57, 4:19–40. As a result, we are concerned that Petitioner’s rationale suffers from improper hindsight bias. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have observed that the prejudice of hindsight bias often overlooks that the genius of invention is often a combination of known elements which in hindsight seems preordained.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we do not find Dr. Ackley’s testimony to be sufficient to support Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the heat-dissipation advantages of Patent Owner’s claimed arrangement.” slip op. at 24

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

    “sufficiently its arguments about the locations of Li’s varistor R1 and capacitor C1 relative to an end wall. Petitioner and Dr. Ackley assume certain spatial relationships based on Li’s Figure 6 and related disclosures. Pet. 34–35, 45–46; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98, 120. But, consistent with Patent Owner’s argument, Li’s Figure 6 is a “schematic circuit diagram,” not a representation of lamp components’ spatial arrangement. Ex. 1005 ¶ 41; Prelim. Resp. 30–31. In addition to Figure 6, Petitioner and Dr. Ackley cite Li’s disclosure that “the filter capacitor C1 and the varistor R1 are connected in parallel between the AC input terminals B3 and B4 of the full-bridge rectifier BR1, wherein the varistor R1 holds the input voltage of the full-bridge rectifier BR1 at a predetermined level by suppressing abnormal overvoltage in the circuit.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 115; Pet. 34–35, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 98, 120. Like Figure 6, this discloses the components’ electrical relationships. Li’s disclosure of certain electrical relationships does not specify any particular spatial relationships of varistor R1 and capacitor C1 to an end wall. And neither Petitioner nor Dr. Ackley explains why a person of ordinary skill in art would have read the disclosed electrical relationships as teaching component locations to arrive at the particular spatial arrangement required by the claim.” slip op. at 22

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,560,989
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Cardware, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Jun 13, 2023 · IPR2023-00219 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Samsung did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–21 and 23–30 were unpatentable, including failure to show the claimed combining and transmitting limitations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “information and transmitting the combined payment information to an NFC reader, we find that Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficiently that Royyuru teaches or suggests claim limitations 1.h and 1.i. In view of this finding, we need not analyze the remaining limitations of claim 1 for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The level of ordinary skill in the art usually is evidenced by the references themselves. See 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). As Petitioner’s proposed description of the level of ordinary skill appears consistent with the subject matter described and claimed in the ’538 patent and the references, we apply Petitioner’s proposed description in this Decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “whether to institute inter partes review. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Neither party has proposed a special definition or explicit construction of any claim term. Although the parties’ arguments discuss the meanings of certain claim terms, as discussed further herein, for purposes of this Decision, we do not construe any claim terms specifically.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,176,538
• Salesforce.Com, Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC D/B/A Brazos Licensing And DevelopmentInstitution denied
  PTAB · Jul 13, 2022 · IPR2022-00357 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because Petitioner did not show Fox was a publicly accessible printed publication before the critical date.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “particularity, evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent and therefore that there is a reasonable likelihood that it qualifies as a printed publication.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018- 01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). The determination of whether a document is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and 7 We note that Petitioner does not attempt to establish that Fox was publicly accessible based on other theories such as, for example, actual dissemination. circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “A reference is 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.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). Evidence of cataloging and indexing can sometimes play a significant role in determining whether a library reference qualifies as a printed publication. See In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In assessing public accessibility, our reviewing court considers whether a reference is “meaningfully indexed such that an interested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would have found it.” Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 774 (citing In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re Klopfenstein, 380 F.3d 1345, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “A reference is 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.” Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 772 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). Evidence of cataloging and indexing can sometimes play a significant role in determining whether a library reference qualifies as a printed publication. See In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In assessing public accessibility, our reviewing court considers whether a reference is “meaningfully indexed such that an interested artisan exercising reasonable diligence would have found it.” Acceleration Bay, 908 F.3d at 774 (citing In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Schmidt, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, or a related subject matter, plus at least two years of professional experience in the field of computer networks, wireless communications, or a similar field.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–34). Patent Owner does not offer a different definition, and Patent Owner” slip op. at 5

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

    “We determine that no aspects of the challenged claims require explicit construction. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,209,411

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.