- Google LLC v. Navblazer, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2021-00504 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5–12, 14–17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Schreder alone or in combinations with the other cited references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention “would have been a person having at least a Bachelor’s Degree in an Engineering discipline such as Electrical or Computer Engineering, or a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science or equivalent degree, and at least two years of relevant experience in the research, design, development and/or testing of navigation systems, embedded systems or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–36). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, which we found to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’782 patent and cited references. See Decision 6. As neither party has contested that choice, we maintain it. Neither party argues” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Though there may be a dispute about the meaning of the claims in the District Court, neither party has sought or attempted to justify any claim construction in this proceeding, and our review of the record does not reveal any terms that require an express construction. We conclude that we need not engage in the formal construction of any claim terms to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan “would recognize the usefulness of leveraging [Hanchett’s] existing traffic radio infrastructure . . . with Schreder’s ‘radio data system 28’ and ‘RF processor 78’ that provides users with information regarding, for example, ‘traffic flow information’ and ‘road blockages,’ to also provide users with video traffic information, including video previews of a particular route.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 72). Petitioner also argues that “[a]s Hanchett recognized, a system that provided video traffic information would allow drivers to view ‘current and accurate information concerning traffic conditions’ via video and ‘evaluate the information in light of his or her particular situation,’” and that “previewing videos of particular roadways would allow a user ‘to make route choices.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1008, 2:34–57, 2:15–22). We agree that the combination of Schreder and Hanchett includes the elements of claim 5, and that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combination. We conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 5 would have been obvious in view of Schreder and Hanchett.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,885,782 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,885,782 - Unified Patents v. Navblazer, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00983 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–19, 21–23, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious, principally over Obradovich alone or with Lappenbusch and Morimoto.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention “would have had a Bachelor’s of Science in electrical engineering or a related subject and two or more years of experience working with navigation and communication systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 23–24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, which we found to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’782 patent and cited references. See Decision 11–12. As neither party has contested that choice, we maintain it. Neither party argues that the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art affects the patentability analysis. B.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims “do not require express construction, or alternatively, only require construction to the extent necessary to determine whether the prior art teaches the claims.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner has not sought any express claim constructions. We conclude that we need not engage in the formal construction of any claim terms to reach our decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenUnpatentable
“viii. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons detailed above, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis regarding Obradovich. We thus conclude that Petitioner has shown claim to be 1 unpatentable as obvious in view of Obradovich.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“a. Independent Claim 15 As explained above, we find that Obradovich discloses the limitations of claim 15, including the camera. See Section II.C.1.b. We also conclude that, even if Obradovich did not disclose a camera for obtaining an image of a roadway, it would have been obvious to add that feature in view of Lappenbusch’s teachings regarding the use of “an interactive roadmap” that allows a user to select segments and then provides images from video cameras located along the route to see images or short video clips of the traffic along the selected route.” Pet. 37–40; see Ex. 1009, 2:45–64. We find that Petitioner has provided a sufficient motivation to combine these complementary disclosures. See Pet. 38–40. Patent Owner does not argue that Obradovich and Lappenbusch do not disclose the subject matter of claim 15, and we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of these references.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,885,782 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,885,782 - Apogee Lighting Holdings, LLC v. Autronic Plastics, Inc. D/B/A Clear-Vu LightingAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2020-01024 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6, 9, 10, 14, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Roberge, Realmuto, Smith, AAPA, and, for certain grounds, Conley.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“55. Ex. 1010, 6:55–60, 16:6–12, 20:33–34, 21:1–2, 21:18–21, 63:4–9, 64:10–21, Fig. 55. Further, the high voltage DC power source of Realmuto is not limited to solar panels, and also includes wind power and a fuel cell. Ex. 1009 4:7–10, Fig. 1. Similarly, Roberge discloses using wind power and a fuel cell. Ex. 1010, 21:1, 21:18–21. Both references also teach using a standard AC power source. Ex. 1009, 1:36–39, 2:28–30; Ex. 1010, 20:33– 34. We find that the similarity of the AC and DC power sources used to provide power to the LEDs in both references, including solar power, wind power, and fuel cells, suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art the compatibility of using the high voltage DC power sources taught by Realmuto to provide power to the LEDs in the LED lighting fixture of Roberge. See In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming an obviousness determination where two “references both teach processes directed to making the same class of products” and minor differences between the disclosures did not “negate the motivation to combine”). Conclusion” slip op. at 59
Patent outcomesUS 10,190,760 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,190,760 - Apogee Lighting Holdings, LLC v. Autronic Plastics, Inc. D/B/A Clear-Vu LightingAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2020-01023 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–10, 13, 17–19, and 22–24 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with the Petition and supporting evidence that combining the teachings of Conley with those of Smith, Realmuto, and the AAPA would have provided the benefit of providing tests necessary to satisfy safety codes for an emergency lighting system used in a public transportation facility, where switching to an alternate power source when the main power source fails allows the lighting system to provide light so that people can safely exit the public transportation facility. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82, 243; Ex. 1005, 32, 182; Ex. 1009, 4:22–26, 5:14–20, Fig. 4; Ex. 1011, 1:13–28; Ex. 1012, 6:43–66. Petitioner’s analysis for claims 9, 10, 13, 17–19, and 22–24, supported by the testimony of Dr. Bretschneider, which we credit, is persuasive that claims 9, 10, 13, 17–19, and 22–24 would have been obvious over Smith, Realmuto, AAPA, and Conley.” slip op. at 82
Patent outcomesUS 9,909,748 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,909,748 - Microsoft Corporation v. Litl, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 29, 2021 · IPR2021-01011 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Patent Owner disclaimed all challenged claims 1–36, and the Board’s rules bar institution on disclaimed claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentDenied
“November 22, 2021, after Petitioner filed its Petition, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer, disclaiming claims 1–36 of the ’957 patent. Ex. 2008. Under our rules, “[n]o inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e); see Gen. Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (explaining how Rule 42.107(e) operates in the case of a pre-institution disclaimer of all claims) (precedential). Because we cannot institute trial on disclaimed claims and Patent Owner has disclaimed all of the challenged claims, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–36. III. ORDER Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to the challenged claims of the ʼ957 patent; and FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,577,957 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2021 · IPR2021-00821 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution 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.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“reasonable likelihood of showing any of challenged claims 1–9, 15–22, and 24–27 would have been obvious over the asserted prior art. Independent claims 1, 26 and 27 recite “wherein the graphical user interface comprises at least a plurality of views of digital media content.” Ex. 1001, 47:58–59, 50:66–67, 51:41–52:1. The independent claims further require transitioning “between the plurality of views.” Id. at 47:60, 51:1, 52:4–5. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner asserts that the prior art teaches a plurality of views because “[t]he Shimura-Tsuji Computer can orient the displayed content in either a normal view in the laptop mode or an inverted view in the easel mode based on the outputs of the rotation angle and gravity sensors.” Pet. 50; see id. at 82, 84. Petitioner further asserts that in its proffered combination, “image files . . . would be displayed in either a normal view in the laptop mode or an inverted view in the easel mode, thereby disclosing ‘the graphical user interface comprising at least a plurality of views of digital media content.’” Id. at 50–51; see id. at 82, 84. Similarly, Petitioner explains that its asserted prior-art combination teaches transitioning between views because “[w]hen a user configures the Shimura-Tsuji-Aldrich Computing System between the laptop and easel modes, the displayed content . . . would ‘transition between the plurality of views [normal and inverted views] in response.” Id. at 51. In short, Petitioner relies only on different orientations of the same displayed content to meet the claimed plurality of views. Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing that the asserted combination of Shimura, Tsuji and Aldrich teach or suggest the claimed plurality of views of digital media content and transitioning between those views, as required in all independent challenged claims.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“As Patent Owner explains, the ’888 patent discusses views extensively. See Prelim. Resp. 38–39 (providing numerous citations to the ’888 patent). In particular, the ’888 patent describes many examples of views that each organize content in a different way. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 5 (album view), 7A (single album view), 8 (time view), 16 (a view including cards); see also id. at 21:35–23:58 (describing the ’888 patent’s figures). We agree with Patent Owner that, when discussing views, the ’888 patent consistently refers to different ways of organizing content. See Prelim. Resp. 35–44; see also, e.g., Ex. 1001, 21:14–15 (explaining that “[e]ach view may offer the user particular interaction options, features and benefits”), 21:16–19 (time view organizing content chronologically), 21:19-22 (album view organizing content by album), 22:59-64 (single album view showing previews of photographs). But, as Patent Owner notes, “[t]he specification never describes two orientations of the same organization of displayed content as different ‘views.’” Prelim. Resp. 37. Instead, the ’888 patent separately addresses the display’s “orientation,” which, according to the specification, is achieved simply by rotating the display. Ex. 1001, 10:27–30 (“the plurality of orientations comprises a first orientation relative to the longitudinal axis and a second orientation relative to the longitudinal axis,”), 10:46–49 “(the second orientation is 90 degrees relative to the first orientation, and . . . the third orientation is 180 degrees relative to the first orientation”), 10:57–11:8 (characterizing the display’s “orientation” as a “degree of rotation”). The ’888 patent also expressly distinguishes between displayed content and its orientation in describing that “display content and/or display orientation of the portable computer may vary when the portable computer is configured from the laptop mode into the easel mode.” Id. at 37:6–9. The ’888 patent, however, does not refer to merely changing the visual display’s orientation as changing views. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Consistent with the ’888 patent’s specification, for purposes of this Decision, we construe “a plurality of views of digital media content” as referring to a plurality of ways of organizing visual representations of computer content. The recitation is distinct from merely changing the display’s orientation.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,612,888 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 2, 2021 · IPR2021-00800 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because the Petition’s deficient, unclear arguments did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“intended to cite and to wade through the Petition to separate the teachings of the references, the Ward testimony, Petitioner’s characterizations of the evidence, and Petitioner’s arguments, that is not our role. Rather, Petitioner is required to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon” and to both “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” and explain “the relevance of [that] evidence to the challenge raised.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5); see also id. § 42.22(a)(2) (petitions “must include . . . [a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). Petitioner has not complied with our rules. To hold otherwise would require us to “play archaeologist with the record,” which we decline to do. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999). Based on all these deficiencies, the Petition fails to specify sufficiently where the limitations of the challenged claims of the ’154 patent are taught or suggested by any of the asserted references. It also fails to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the significance of the citations to the asserted references and the Ward Declaration. These failures violate the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5). Because these requirements must be met to show that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determine that Petitioner has not made such a showing.” slip op. at 18
- BurdenDenied
“Although it might be possible for us to guess at the support Petitioner intended to cite and to wade through the Petition to separate the teachings of the references, the Ward testimony, Petitioner’s characterizations of the evidence, and Petitioner’s arguments, that is not our role. Rather, Petitioner is required to “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon” and to both “identify[] specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge” and explain “the relevance of [that] evidence to the challenge raised.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5); see also id. § 42.22(a)(2) (petitions “must include . . . [a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”). Petitioner has not complied with our rules. To hold otherwise would require us to “play archaeologist with the record,” which we decline to do. DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999). Based on all these deficiencies, the Petition fails to specify sufficiently where the limitations of the challenged claims of the ’154 patent are taught or suggested by any of the asserted references. It also fails to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of the significance of the citations to the asserted references and the Ward Declaration. These failures violate the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5). Because these requirements must be met to show that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determine that Petitioner has not made such a showing.” slip op. at 18
NonePatents in suitUS 10,289,154 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00822 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show that Shimura and the other references taught or suggested the required frame mode in claims 1–16 and 18–22.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution 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.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Petitioner proposes a claim construction for “content mode,” as well as several related terms, i.e., “first content mode,” “second content mode,” and “mode(s) of content.” Pet. 16–18. We determine we need not explicitly construe those terms to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Figure 26 and the accompanying text characterize frame mode as having the keyboard face down on a surface with the screen face up, and the base and display components forming a non-zero angle 134, similar to easel mode’s inverted “V.” See id. at 16:6–13.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“reasonable likelihood of showing the asserted prior art would have rendered obvious the subject matter of challenged claims 1–16 and 18–22. Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 require a “frame mode in which the main display component is oriented towards the operator, the base contacts a substantially horizontal surface, and the keyboard faces the substantially horizontal surface.” Ex. 1001, 17:47–51, 18:66–19:2, 20:27–30, Certificate of Correction. For all of its asserted grounds, Petitioner relies on Shimura’s Figure 4 for teaching the claimed “frame mode.” Pet. 57, 87, 102. We agree with Patent Owner that Shimura’s Figure 4 does not disclose or suggest a frame mode. See Prelim. Resp. 27–32.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,624,844 - Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Litl LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 21, 2021 · IPR2021-00786 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Lenovo did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 would be unpatentable over the asserted combinations of Shimura, Tsuji, and Pogue.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that 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.” As discussed below, we determine that Petitioner does not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we deny institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“above. As we explain in the summary of the ’715 patent provided in Section II.B, supra, the purpose of the ’715 patent is to better organize “more and more features” provided by “feature packing,” so that the typical computer user can better take advantage of features offered. Id. at 1:40–2:44. The ’715 patent explains that “different views [that] present different organizations of the interface elements and in some example[s] display only certain ones of the modes of content in order to reduce the number of options a user must navigate to accomplish an objective.” Id. at 2:45–58. As Patent Owner explains, the ’715 patent discusses views extensively. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 29–33 (providing numerous citations to the ’715 patent. In particular, the ’715 patent describes many examples of views that each organize content in a different way. See, e.g., id. at Figs. 2 (home view), 3A (web page view), 5 (quick access view), 6 (bookmark view), 20A (channel page view), 21 (channel full view), 23 (channel view); see also id. at 12:48–15:15 (summarizing the ’715 patent’s figures). We agree with Patent Owner that, when discussing views, the ’715 patent consistently refers to different ways of organizing content. Prelim. Resp. 29– 33.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As Patent Owner argues, the Petition relies only on different orientations (such as a “normal view” and an “inverted view”) of a single organization of displayed content, to meet claim 1’s views recitation. Id. at 24–25. For example, Patent Owner points out that the Petition considers Shimura’s display of the word “PATENT” right-side-up (normal view) and upside-down (inverted) as meeting the recited “plurality of views.” Id. at 26– 27 (citing Pet. 49–50, 54–55). As we explain above in our claim construction, however, inverting or re-orienting a single way of organizing displayed content does not create a “plurality of views of a plurality of visual representations of computer content” as claimed and described in the ’715 patent. As such, Petitioner’s implicit “construction of ‘plurality of views’ as reading on different orientations of the same organization of displayed content is wrong because it is inconsistent with every embodiment of a ‘plurality of views’ described in the specification.” Id. at 25, 38–41. Indeed, Patent Owner correctly explains that the ’715 patent addresses reorientation of a display but reorientation does not result in the views recitation. Patent Owner makes this distinction by arguing: [in] the claims and the specification of the ’715 Patent—a “view” is a way of organizing displayed content. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 2:54–58 (“[t]he different views present different organizations of the interface elements”); 3:26–28 (“the plurality of views are configured to organize modes of content into different views”); 7:25–27, 9:55–57 (a “plurality of views” of computer content as recited in claims 1, 17 and 20, is a plurality of ways of organizing displayed content). . . . the specification also describes re-orientating the same display organization about the computer’s longitudinal axis to ensure it is right-side-up, but uses different terminology to describe that re-orientation and never refers to two different orientations of the same organization of displayed content as different views. . . . The specification makes clear “views” are particular ways of organizing displayed content—not different orientations of a single organization of displayed content. Prelim. Resp. 27–28; see id. at 29–37, 42–44. We find that Patent Owner’s explanation of this distinction is best supported by the text of the ’715 patent. Thus, on the current record, Petitioner has not made a sufficient” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,880,715 - Cradlepoint, Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2021 · IPR2021-00815 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 and 5–8 were obvious over any of the three asserted reference combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“and Patent Owner’s arguments in response highlight a question that hinges on claim language analysis. The issue is whether the recited “attach request is configured to trigger a create communication connection default procedure” may encompass a normal attach request. We hold that, based on the claim language, the ’070 patent specification, and binding legal authority, it may not.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2019); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2019) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions and the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim of the ’070 patent. Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s request and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“is no indication in Josse or in the Petition that Josse’s attach request, i.e., a GPRS attach, is in any way configured to perform the new signaling or the updating that Petitioner identifies as possibly being “a create communication connection default procedure.” Although Petitioner states that “Josse triggers a PDP context activation procedure,” (Pet. 34), there is no disclosure in Josse that (1) the attach request is configured to trigger a PDP context activation procedure; or (2) that a PDP context activation procedure actually occurs during the attach request procedure. Josse belies Petitioner’s contentions for two reasons. The first reason is that any update of the ISD, which Petitioner seems to focus on as somehow being related to PDP context activation, is exchanged based on the conventional method of location update during a normal attach request. Ex. 1003, 2:4458 (referring to the attach procedure described in GSM standard, 03.60 v. 2.0, for the GPRS service description, Phase 2, dated, May 1997). Josse’s attach request does not convey that anything other than the conventional attach procedure be performed. Josse adds additional fields to the HLR so that during a conventional attach procedure, additional information concerning the mobile device’s subscription (ISD) can be exchanged. Thus, the fact that Josse exchanges this ISD information is not evidence that the attach request is anything other than a normal attach request. Second, the field that Josse adds to the HLR is what triggers any further packet-data connectivity that the mobile station may enjoy, if the specified conditions are satisfied. As stated above, Josse’s new field specifies whether the mobile station is allowed to update the gateway with the new SGSN address information for packet-data routing before any PDP context activation is performed. Ex. 1003, 6:2427. Josse explains that the additional signaling between the new SGSN and the gateway occurs as a result of receiving authorization in the new field in the ISD and after verifying that the PDP contexts are not active. Id. at 9:3949. Thus, any update the mobile station may receive in its communication channel for data packet transmission occurs because the new HLR field triggers it, i.e., it is not a function attributable to the attach request itself.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,979,070
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.