- Toast, Inc v. Gratuity, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Marshall, Marshall and Webb, Phillips and Marshall, or Phillips, Marshall, and Webb.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, to the extent that it aligns with the level of skill portrayed by the ’050 Patent. As discussed above, the ’050 Patent does not does not provide one with any technical direction for making and using a multi-restaurant embodiment that avoids or solves calculation/extraction problems due to disparate client (e.g., restaurant) systems. The ’050 Patent also does not provide one with any technical direction for scaling up and/or transitioning to a cloud-based system. We infer from this that a POSITA would have the education and the experience enabling him/her to effectively and economically handle these tasks without technical direction, despite the problems associated therewith. Put another way, the actual application of these technical endeavors would not be beyond his/her skill. Although Petitioner provides a slightly different expression for the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 9–10), it substantively agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill and adopting Petitioner’s precise level of ordinary skill would not change our decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner presents several pages of argument about claim construction, but offers no proposed construction for any of the claim terms. See PO Resp. 11–18. “Petitioner maintains that no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. Resp. 4. We determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“with a restaurant’s timeclock programs, time and attendance systems, and/or payroll processing systems. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 108. Webb discloses that, in a restaurant setting, a POS system can be communicatively coupled to a time and attendance server. See Ex. 1006, Abstract, 24:51–60, Figs. 1A, 1B. Thus, Marshall and Webb describe similar and compatible systems in the same field of art—systems for tracking employee and sales information in the hospitality business. And Petitioner provides evidence that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine these teachings in the claimed manner. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–212. Patent Owner argues that Webb “does not cure the deficiencies” of Marshall. PO Resp. 41. However, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner regarding Marshall’s deficiencies. Thus, Webb need not cure these alleged deficiencies in Marshall.10 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 4–7, 9, and 11–13 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall and Webb. 10 Patent Owner also mentions that there is “simply no motivation to combine Marshall and Webb.” PO Sur-Reply 7; see also PO Resp. 42. But Patent Owner does not address the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s client-side-only arguments are overly focussed on the setup disclosed in Marshall’s Figure 3, and, in any event, do not coincide with Petitioner’s citations to Marshall. Petitioner points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s multi-employer 8 The ’050 Patent lists a provisional application filed on September 4, 2012 as a related application. Ex. 1004, code (60). 9 Marshall discloses that “data transfer” can be “data transfer is performed via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 110. embodiment. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner also points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s disclosure that the server executing the GrataSoft software can be separate (i.e., not co-located) with the POS server executing the Aloha software. Id. at 10. In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, these topics remained undiscussed. See PO Sur-Reply 1–6. Both aspects of Petitioner’s contentions support that Marshall’s system does disclose a gratuity management system that is separate and distinct from the client POS servers. Patent Owner argues that there would be problems “associated with calculations of gratuities based on client-specific information extracted from disparate, ad hoc client business systems.” PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2006 69–73. Patent Owner also argues that there would be “problems associated with scale-up and transitioning to a cloud-based system, and associated cost and security issue. PO Resp. 27; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 87–91. However, as discussed above, the ’050 Patent portrays that a POSITA would have the education and experience enabling him/her to effectively handle the conversion of a singlerestaurant system to a multi-restaurant system; and to transition to a safe and secure cloud system in a cost/time effective manner. Thus, these problems would not detract from the obviousness of a multi-restaurant and/or cloud-based version of Marshall’s invention. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 1–3, 8, and 10 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 9,741,050 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,741,050 - Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00474 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Zhou, Bannister, Gentry, and Durfee; the Board did not reach the additional Welty-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“known that a spiral flute helps to lift swarf away from the cutting surface. Pet. 67 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 201–202). The testimony of Petitioner’s expert states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “the spiral shape of the flute side walls was desirable since it helps to lift chips, or swarf, away from the cutting surface and evacuate it from the hole being cut.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 202. This makes intuitive sense, as a wall perpendicular to the surface would push accumulated chips along, whereas the wedge shape of the spiral will lift them away from the cutting surface. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Zhou’s flute to arrange the cutting edges such that they, as a whole, have a spiral shape in order to achieve these chip-lifting benefits. Thus, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention had a reason to include the known feature of cutting tips that spiraled around the cone portion, in order to achieve the benefit of providing better chip removal.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“formed sequentially and spirally on a cone portion exterior” of the twist drill. The parties agreed to construe the cutting blade groups being “formed spirally” as meaning that the cutting blade groups are slanted with respect to the rotational axis, i.e., are not perpendicular to the rotational axis. The parties have agreed that being “formed spirally” is met by axial relief. Pet. 23; Tr. 77:9–12. We adopted this construction. slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“2. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. 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 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,007,583 - Viking Drill & Tool, Inc. v. Hongjia WangAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00473 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“(noting the header). Petitioner argues that Patent Owner specifically cites to this document as evidence of beliefs held by a third party (different from Astro). Mot. Excl. 7. Patent Owner asserts that these are “observations of testing.” Opp. Mot. Excl. 10. We note that this document was produced by Astro, a party with ties to Patent Owner. Notwithstanding, Patent Owner attempts to attribute the statements in this document to another third party (not Astro). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is attempting to use these statements for the truth of the matter asserted. See, e.g., Resp. 50–51 (alleging that the third party “was [] impressed with their performance” and citing to Exhibit 2059 as evidence of “initial testing documents”). Accordingly, Patent Owner is not only attempting to use these documents for the truth of the matter asserted, but Patent Owner is attempting to attribute them to a party different from the party that made the statements. We do not find any exceptions to the hearsay rule to be applicable here. In addition, Exhibit 2059, as offered, is misleading and confusing. We exclude Exhibit 2059. 5. Exhibit 2060 Exhibit 2060 appears to contain a series of slides and notes, as would be used in a presentation. The document appears to be that of a third party. Patent Owner asserts that the content in this exhibit demonstrates the third party’s “strong desire to copy” the claimed invention. See, e.g., Resp. 51, 59. Assuming they are what they are alleged to be, then these are out-of- court statements by a third party being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted—that an employee of the third party thought highly of Patent Owner’s licensed drill bits. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s passing arguments that these represent “real-time observations, impressions of, and reactions to” the claimed invention. Opp. Mot. Excl. 9–10. We exclude Exhibit 2060.” slip op. at 77
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts the following level of ordinary skill in the art: A [person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA)] with respect to the ’583 patent would have been an individual educated in mechanical engineering with a bachelor’s degree and at least one or two years of experience in the development of drill bits, or an associate’s degree and at least five years of experience in the development of drill bits. A POSA would typically work in a team with machinists and would be aware of developments in the field of machine tools, particularly drill bits, for example by attending trade shows, and by reading patents and trade journals. Pet. 25; see also Ex. 1004 ¶ 14. Patent Owner does not appear to challenge this proposed level of skill or offer its own. We adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision, which appears consistent with the ’583 patent and prior art.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“which are easy to be removed.” Ex. 1001, 9:19–22 (emphasis added). Another portion of the specification discusses chip size in terms of the size of an individual composite cutting blade group. Id. at 3:5–25. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification of the ’583 patent. We construe the “finer chips” limitation as reciting a natural consequence of having a plurality of cutting surfaces, relative to having one large cutting surface. 3. Construction of Remaining Terms We determine that no further terms require construction. Realtime” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“3. Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness Patent Owner asserts that objective indicia of non-obviousness overcomes any prima facie obviousness case. Resp. 44–60; Sur-reply 15– 26. Patent Owner first asserts that there is a nexus between the challenged claims and its alleged objective indicia. Resp. 46–49; Sur-reply 15–19. Patent Owner also alleges that its evidence shows copying (Resp. 49–55; Sur-reply 20–21), industry praise (Resp. 55–56; Sur-reply 21–22), commercial success (Resp. 56–58; Sur-reply 22–26), and satisfaction of a long-felt need (Resp. 58–60). Petitioner disputes these allegations. Reply 18–28. a) Nexus Patent Owner bears the burden of establishing nexus. WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A presumption of nexus is only appropriate if “the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (cleaned up). The coextensiveness requirement is not met simply by showing that “the patent claims broadly cover the product that is the subject of the evidence of secondary considerations.” Id. at 1377. Coextensiveness can be thought of as “the degree of correspondence between a product and a patent claim.” Id. at 1374. “[T]he existence of one or more unclaimed features, standing alone,” does not necessarily defeat coextensiveness. Id. Instead, “the concept of unclaimed features is best viewed as part of a spectrum.” Teva Phrama. Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co., 8 F.4th 1349, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “The presumption analysis requires the fact finder to consider the unclaimed features of the stated products to determine their level of significance and their impact on the correspondence between the claim and the products.” Id. (citing Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1375). The nexus analysis should focus on and consider the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention, and the extent to which the objective indicia speaks to these gaps. Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc., 10 F.4th 1268, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]o establish a nexus, [the patent owner] needed to present evidence that the commercial success and praise of the [product] derived from those ‘unique characteristics.’”) (citing Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–74). Simply providing evidence tied to features already present in the prior art does not satisfy the inquiry. Id. (“objective indicia must be linked to a [] patent claim’s unique characteristics”); Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378 (stating that for patents claiming combinations of prior art features, a patentee must show that the secondary considerations evidence is “attributable to the claimed combination of [prior art features], as opposed to, for example, prior art features in isolation or unclaimed features”). Patent Owner’s assertions regarding nexus are conclusory and extensively incorporate by reference other documents. See generally Resp. 46–49; Sur-reply 15–19. Patent Owner begins by citing to sixteen claim charts. Resp. 46 (citing Exs. 2074–2089). Patent Owner then alleges that the products it has licensed “are coextensive with the patented invention” because all of them are drill bits. Id. at 47. Patent Owner asserts that there are no unclaimed features, but in support of that allegation merely cites to its expert, who in turn says the same words without providing any support for his opinion. Id. at 47–48 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶ 150). We acknowledge that the claims of the ’583 patent are directed to a” slip op. at 56
Patent outcomesUS 11,007,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,007,583
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.