- Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01271 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1–21 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy taught limitation [1B].
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“variable data database’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 94; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 68, 70). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties.” slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties based on the SO-class identified for the form would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’342 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:48– 52). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’342 patent. In column 17, lines 48–52, the ’342 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms, and variations of the data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:48–52. While this portion of the ’342 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe linking or mapping variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 75 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’342 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1B]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1B] of the ’342 patent.” slip op. at 5
NonePatents in suitUS 10,262,342 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy teaches limitation [1C] of claims 1–26.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“[m]issing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a ‘plurality of computer-readable field identifiers’ are mapped ‘to one another’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69, 71). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’378 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:42–46). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers (including parameter names) from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because the field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class. Id. We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’378 patent. In column 17, lines 42–46, the ’378 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms and variations of these data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:42–46. While this portion of the ’378 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe any linking or mapping of variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’378 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1C]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1C] of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Finally, with regard to the Reply and Sur-Reply submitted by the parties (Req. 9), we note that our Decision on Institution reviewed the parties’ discussion of claim construction, but ultimately determined that “[b]ased on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision.” Dec. 11. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner that we misconstrued the mapping limitation where we did not find it necessary to construe any claim term for the purposes of our institution decision because we determined the Petition deficient for failing to meet our threshold requirements as discussed above and in detail in the Decision on Institution. See Req. 1–11.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - Phison Electronics Corporation v. Vervain, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00212 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Institution
Institution of inter partes review of claims 1–11 was denied under § 314(a) because the Fintiv factors, viewed holistically, favored discretionary denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“7. Weighing the Fintiv Factors We take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” when evaluating the Fintiv factors. Fintiv at 6. The trial date (December 2025) for the parallel proceeding is considerably earlier than the projected statutory deadline (June 2026) for issuing a final written decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, Fintiv factor 2 weighs for discretionary denial. Under Fintiv factor 4, there is significant overlap between the invalidity challenges asserted in the two proceedings. Petitioner has proffered no stipulation to ameliorate concerns of duplicative efforts and conflicting decisions. Accordingly, this factor weighs for discretionary denial. Petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same, so Fintiv factor 5 weighs for discretionary denial.” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,891,298 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01205 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 were held unpatentable over the asserted prior art, and the revised motion to amend was denied because proposed substitute claims 15–28 were also unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–14 of the ’688 patent are unpatentable.15 In addition, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 15–28 are unpatentable. Our determinations are summarized below.” slip op. at 89
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“(d) Conclusion for Obviousness of Claim 15 For the reasons provided above, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that each of Petitioner’s asserted grounds (Hain in combination with Rass, Hain in combination with Shaffer and Rass, Hain in combination with Aumer, and Hain in combination with Shaffer and Aumer) renders proposed substitute independent claim 15 obvious. We have considered Patent Owner’s arguments and we do not agree for the reasons addressed above. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a” slip op. at 79
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“D. Anticipation by Hain Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 2, and 4 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Hain, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 17–29 (citing Ex. 1002). Patent Owner declined to file a Patent Owner Response and waived all arguments as to Petitioner’s challenges to the original claims. Tr. 35:9–16. In the absence of arguments and evidence from the Patent Owner, we still review Petitioner’s assertions to ascertain whether Petitioner has met its burden to establish the unpatentability of the original claims by a preponderance of the evidence. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1,2, and 4 are anticipated by Hain. 1. Independent Claim 1 Petitioner’s argument regarding the teachings of Hain in regards to” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“E. Obviousness over Hain and Shaffer Petitioner asserts that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Hain and Shaffer, citing the Declaration of Dr. Kiaei for support. Pet. 29–61 (citing Ex. 1002). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and based on the evidence in the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 8–12, and 14 would have been obvious over the combination of Hain and Shaffer. For example, Petitioner’s arguments regarding independent claim 1 may be summarized as follows: Petitioner asserts that Shaffer teaches the preamble7 of claim 1, which recites a method for power control of a wireless earpiece. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32, 34, 62, 63, Figs. 3A, 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 56–57). Petitioner contends that Shaffer’s wireless earbuds 1010 and 1012 are powered down automatically when they are placed into their storage case 11. Id. at 30. Specifically, Petitioner argues that Shaffer’s earbuds enter a low power mode in response to a magnetic sensor detecting that the earbuds are in their storage case. Id. at 31. Petitioner further contends that Shaffer in view of Hain teaches” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 10,397,688 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,397,688 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01204 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable under the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds; the revised motion to amend is denied because substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“1–13, respectively. RMTA 1. A listing of proposed substitute claims 14–26 is provided by Patent Owner in Appendix A of its Revised Motion to Amend. Id. at APPX A-1. For the reasons explained below, we determine that Patent Owner has shown that proposed substitute claims 14–26 meet the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. However, we also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 14–26 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 10,117,014 unpatentableNonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,117,014 - PTAB · Jan 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01048 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all four grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We begin our analysis with independent claim 1. Considering these factors, we preliminarily determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Zhang, Fillebrown, and Pasanen, for the reasons explained below.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues that limitation 1c is taught by the combination of Zhang with Fillebrown. Pet. 18. Petitioner identifies Zhang’s teaching of transmitting commands and media content from the mobile device to helper servers via a wireless network, WLAN. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1004, 3:25– 60, 4:1–8, 4:32–50, 7:1–14, 8:13–22; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 103, 104, 114–118). Acknowledging that Zhang does not expressly teach an intermediate routing device, Petitioner identifies Fillebrown’s intermediate wireless router (wireless router 120) for providing network range extension by amplifying routed signals. Id. at 19–22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 34, 49, 51, 57, 61). Petitioner contends a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Zhang to route data via an intermediate wireless router pursuant to Fillebrown to provide network range extension, and that such a modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang and Fillebrown teach the same network setup (i.e., WLAN using a wireless protocol/standard such as IEEE 802.11 or Home RF). Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 109–111)” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties do not propose any express claim construction. Pet. 4; see generally Prelim Resp. We also determine that no express claim construction is necessary for our Decision, apart from that discussed in our below analysis. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only terms in controversy must 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 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We preliminarily disagree with Patent Owner. Although the claim lists step 1b before step 1d, method steps are not ordinarily construed to require a specific order of performance unless the claims or Specification directly or implicitly require that specific order. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Nothing in the express claim language precludes performing step 1d before step 1b, as in Zhang. For example, the claim does not contain temporal terms, like “then” or “next,” nor does the claim otherwise specify that step 1b must precede step 1d. Although Patent Owner points out that a term of step 1d (i.e., the one more available devices) derives antecedent basis from text in step 1b (i.e., one more available devices), this alone does not directly or implicitly require performing step 1b before step 1d. Prelim Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1002, 240, ’648 patent prosecution history). Nor does the Specification require performing the step of identifying devices as available before the step of wirelessly signaling those devices or even that the steps be mutually exclusive. For example, there are no statements that this step order is important, nor disclaimer of any other order, nor any prosecution history indicating a surrender of any other order. Moreover, according to the Specification, announcer 30, which is the component that identifies devices as available prior to the wirelessly signaling, is only “preferably provided.” Ex. 1001, 7:28–31. Even assuming Patent Owner were correct that step 1b must precede step 1d, Patent Owner’s position that device(s) must be identified as available does not appear to be commensurate with the claims. According to its plain meaning, limitation 1b does not appear to require identifying devices as available; the claim merely requires identifying “available devices.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (rejecting arguments “not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). In other words, the claim does not appear to require identifying (i.e., determining) whether devices are available but merely requires identifying devices that happen to be available. According to our preliminary understanding, Zhang’s mobile device 1) discovers (identifies) connected available and unavailable helper servers, and then 2) sends (wirelessly signals) service requests to compatible available and unavailable helper servers. Ex. 1004, 3:44–4:8, 6:51–7:13. Thus, Zhang identifies and then wirelessly signals available devices (Zhang also identifies and then wirelessly signals unavailable devices). As such, we preliminary determine that Zhang meets the claim language “identifying one or more available devices” and “wirelessly signaling the one or more available devices.”” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,547,648 - K/S Himpp v. Bragi GmbHAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 21, 2025 · IPR2023-01150 · APJ Larry J Hume · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable; proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable, and the revised motion to amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Burden
“also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 56
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“also determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 22–42 are unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend.” slip op. at 56
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Accordingly, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“d. Conclusion for Ground 4: Obviousness of Claim 1 in view of Shaffer and Hain As discussed above, Petitioner’s analysis addresses how the combined” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 9,843,853 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,843,853 - ROKU, Inc. v. Videolabs, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2024-01025 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 100–109 and 111 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation by Russ and obviousness over Russ with Robert or Eskicioglu.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, Reply, Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim in the ’236 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 100–109 and 111 on all grounds set forth in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).1” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“1 Petitioner filed a Notice Ranking Petitions and Explaining Material Differences. Paper 3. Petitioner states that it filed three parallel IPR petitions challenging three different claim sets of the ’236 patent “solely for word count purposes that preclude all claims from being challenged in [a] single petition,” “there is no duplicative overlap of the same claims across petitions,” and there is a “need to set” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“someone having “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, and approximately two or more years of experience in multi-media content distribution and management. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 13. Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s proposed definition for purposes of its Preliminary Response. Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Malek Dec. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38).7” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“on claim construction and disregard everything else.8 The parties direct our attention in particular to the proper construction of an “independent” second root of trust in context of the recited claim limitation: “a second authentication process which is independent of the first authentication process and wherein the second authentication process uses a second root of trust which is independent of and different than the first root of trust.” We refer to this disputed claim limitation hereafter as the “independent authentication” limitation.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,291,236 - Nearmap US, Inc. v. Pictometry International Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00729 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because the Petition did not sufficiently explain how the asserted references teach claim 1’s control data limitation or establish unpatentability of the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“The question before us is not whether we could come up with a way to understand how the asserted prior art could render the challenged claims unpatentable, but rather did Petitioner provide the arguments and evidence to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Here, Petitioner has not met that burden and as such, Petitioner has not shown by a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenDenied
“contentions with sufficient particularity. As the Supreme Court has noted, “the petitioner is master of its complaint.” SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 363 (2018). As such, Petitioner has the responsibility to make plain its challenges to the disputed claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104 (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). The Petition does not make clear Petitioner’s theory of the case. It is not the Board’s responsibility to weave together Petitioner’s evidence into a cohesive case. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (stating that Petitioner “must include” a full statement supporting its challenge “including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”); see also Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Noting that a party’s burden “cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.”). We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We also agree that, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth to supply arguments and explanations missing from the Petition, such reliance is improper. For example, Petitioner’s string cite parenthetical for limitation [1.d] is less than one page, but the cited portions of Dr. Forsyth’s testimony comprise about 13 pages, along with an additional nine pages in the expanded claim chart of Appendix C. Pet. 61; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 159–167, Appendix C. Our rules expressly prohibit such incorporation by reference. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”). The Federal Circuit has held that “the ‘prohibition against incorporation of arguments from other documents serves various policy goals, including to ‘minimize the chance that an argument may be overlooked’ and to ‘eliminate[ ] abuses that arise from incorporation and combination.’” Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1372 (citing General Access Solutions, Ltd. v. Sprint Spectrum L.P., 811 F. App'x 654, 657 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). We decline to sift through Dr. Forsyth’s declaration in order to find the arguments that may support Petitioner’s challenge.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to sufficiently explain how the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Neither Petitioner’s claim chart for limitation [1.f] nor the other portions of the Petition identified in Petitioner’s Reply identify what disclosure in Loewen or Fujimoto corresponds to this “control data,” or why this “control data” would be inherent in the disclosures of those references. Additionally, as discussed above, to the extent Petitioner is relying on Dr. Forsyth’s Declaration to provide argument not set forth in the Petition, such reliance would be an improper incorporation by reference. And, in any event, Dr. Forsyth also does not identify with specificity what disclosures of Loewen or Fujimoto correspond to the “control data” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Finally, Petitioner’s Reply does not explain how Loewen’s disclosure that the computer “triggers” the still cameras to capture images involves “control data,” or why one of ordinary skill would understand that “control data” is necessarily sent as part of this “triggering.” Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show that the combination of Loewen and Fujimoto teaches element [1.f], and thus has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over this combination. Because Petitioner’s other grounds are all directed to claims that depend from claim 1, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently show unpatentability of those claims as well.” slip op. at 25
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,182,657
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.