• Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00448 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–21, 23–29, 31, and 32 are unpatentable under § 103; claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we instituted review based on all challenged claims and all challenges included in the Petition. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We issue this Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–21, 23–29, 31, and 32 are unpatentable but has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Conclusion About Obviousness for Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, the combined disclosures in Law and” slip op. at 86

  Patent outcomesUS 11,012,474 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,012,474

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.