- Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 29–31 are unpatentable; claims 25 and 32–34 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to exclude was dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- RemandOther
“review of claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1, 3. Patent Owner, Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). We initially determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17. Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”). Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Delegated Review Panel vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised claim construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”). On August 30, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review after remand from the Director. Paper 25 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Reply”), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”), and Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 48, “Sur-sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther
“I. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090. Paper 50. As we did not rely on either of Exhibits 1089 or 1090 in deciding this matter, Patent Owner’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 96
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableMixed
“For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments and cited evidence also” slip op. at 31
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“function as R2, and the ethyl group may function as R4, which can be a linear alkyl having 1–6 carbon atoms. We note that claim 3 permits R5 and R6 to be absent. For these reasons, the arguments presented in the Petition demonstrate that claim 3 would have been obvious over Singh’s Compound 3 when modified in view of Harris.” slip op. at 73
Patent outcomesUS 10,131,682 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,131,682 - Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2024 · IPR2022-01434 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 15 are unpatentable over Chung and Olmos-based obviousness grounds; claims 10–14 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach the claimed complementary relationship.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“improperly incorporates-by-reference 12 pages of expert testimony via a single sentence.” PO Sur-reply 16 n.2 (citing Pet. Reply 17, which in turn cites Ex. 1026 (Hatch Decl.) ¶¶ 49–66). We find that many of the paragraphs within the cited range (i.e., Hatch Declaration paragraphs 49–66) appear to have a tenuous connection to the proposition for which Petitioner cites these paragraphs. See Pet. Reply 17. That said, we find that paragraphs 53–55 directly relate to Petitioner’s proposition in the Reply, i.e., that “Petitioner’s experts explain why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would rely on a cross-sectional view over a perspective view for making the determination in question, because only the cross-sections provide the needed side view directly orthogonal to the positions of the yellow expansion portion and the end of the dovetail.” Id. Accordingly, we find that paragraphs 53–55—the only paragraphs we cite from Petitioner’s range in reaching our conclusion—are not improperly incorporated by reference into Petitioner’s Reply.” slip op. at 66
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“provide Petitioner an opportunity to respond under the new construction, and decline to strike Petitioner’s relevant argument and evidence. Cf. Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1383 (“[W]hen the Board adopts a new claim construction following institution, an IPR petitioner must have adequate notice and an opportunity to respond under the new construction.”). Like in Axonics, in its new arguments on Reply, Petitioner here relies on the same embodiment from the same prior art reference that it relies on in the Petition to support the same legal argument, i.e., that Olmos’s Figure 16 embodiment discloses the “complementary with one another” limitation of challenged claims 10– 14. See Axonics, 75 F.4th at 1384; see also Apple Inc. v. Andrea Elecs. Corp., 949 F.3d 697, 706 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (permitting petitioner to elaborate in reply on an unpatentability theory presented in the petition). Moreover, we permitted Patent Owner to file (and it indeed did file) a sur-reply brief and expert declaration that addressed Petitioner’s new obviousness theories. Accordingly, both parties had adequate notice of our preliminary construction and an opportunity to respond under that new construction. For these reasons, we deny Patent Owner’s motion to strike.” slip op. at 124
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“from the expansion portion. We agree with Patent Owner that the wording of this limitation as a whole requires that the “extension necessarily must protrude beyond a longitudinal end of the expansion portion.” Id. at 11. We also agree with Patent Owner that “[u]nder Petitioner’s tenuous theory, an extension in any direction except 90 or 180 degrees would satisfy the claim language since any such direction has a so-called ‘longitudinal component.’” Id. at 13. For these reasons, we disagree with Petitioner’s argument that the purported “longitudinal component” of Chung’s extension satisfies limitation 1[h].” slip op. at 55
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“would have been motivated to add an extension to the Figure 16 embodiment because “an integrally-formed extension advantageously requires fewer parts, which facilitates both manufacturing and use.” Pet. 118. We agree with Patent Owner that this argument is unavailing. PO Resp. 50. Petitioner’s combination entails adding an extension (from Figure 8) to an embodiment lacking one (Figure 16). We agree with Patent Owner that adding a new component (whether separately or integrally) can in some instances complicate manufacturing/assembly and increase costs. See id. (citing Ex. 2013 (Culbert Decl.) ¶ 115). Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed combination in this instance would reduce complexity or facilitate the manufacturing process. Accordingly, we do not rely on this argument offered by Petitioner.” slip op. at 106
Patent outcomesUS 8,845,731 mixed§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,845,731 - PNC Bank N.A. v. United Services Automobile AssociationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 10, 2023 · IPR2022-00076 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 8–20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2–7 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not establish motivation to combine for their error-processing limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or equivalent field” and “two years of prior experience with image capturing/scanning technology, involving transferring and processing of image data to and at a server.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 45). Petitioner further asserts that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. For purposes of the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal (Inst. Dec. 16), and neither party alleges that a different level of ordinary skill should be applied in this proceeding (see PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply). In this Decision, we again adopt the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner. We are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of and the asserted prior art. Accord Inst. Dec. 15–16.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“In the Petition, Petitioner states that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms or phrases (Pet. 12–14), but for two phrases in claim 1, Petitioner specifically argues that the prior art teaches or suggests the phrase under each of two alternate meanings (id. at 34–35, 37). In the Institution Decision, we agreed with Petitioner’s primary understanding of these phrases and, as a result, did not reach the alternative contentions. Inst. Dec. 33 n.18, 38 n.21. At trial, Patent Owner states that claim construction is unnecessary to resolve the issues disputed in this proceeding. PO Resp. 6; Tr. 46:4–16. Petitioner agrees, but contends that Patent Owner’s arguments regarding dependent claim 3 are premised on a narrowing construction of one of its terms. Tr. 15:4–16:2. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms in that claim should apply. Id. at 46:12–16. We agree that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms or phrases in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad 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 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“motivated to add error processing to Garcia’s mobile phone so that it could address errors before transmitting the check image in order “to avoid wasting communications resources and adding delays.” Pet. 42. But, Petitioner does not support this rationale with a persuasive explanation or evidence. Indeed, we assume that Petitioner’s theory is that the error checking at the mobile device would have conserved bandwidth and reduced delay because it would have allowed the mobile device to identify some unsuitable images before they were sent to the payee bank; however, the Petition does not actually include an explanation to this effect. Rather, it simply states that an ordinary artisan would have known that mobile telephone networks (such as that used by Garcia) “are bandwidth and resource-constrained, and that communications over such networks takes time.” Id.; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 115. However, all networks have bandwidth and resource constraints, and all communications take time, and neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry explain why these considerations would have been relevant to an ordinary artisan implementing Garcia. Indeed, the Petition next asserts that “Byrne provides the requisite solution to this problem” (Pet. 42), but neither the Petition nor Dr. Mowry identify any problem. For example, Dr. Mowry does not testify that an ordinary artisan would have expected Garcia’s system to consume excessive bandwidth or incur for claim 2). In addition, Petitioner recognizes that the verification process is performed by the payee bank in Garcia, yet does not address the fact that its proposal would apparently shift a portion of the verification process to the mobile phone. See Pet. 40–44. Dr. Mowry’s trial testimony casts further doubt on Petitioner’s rationale for this claim. Dr. Mowry testifies that conserving bandwidth would “potentially” have been one of the goals of an ordinary artisan “depend[ing] on how precious their resource is.” Ex. 2020, 68:12–24. But Dr. Mowry “wouldn’t necessarily characterize [Garcia] as bandwidth intensive.” Id. at 76:13–23. In addition, he disagreed that “in the Garcia system, the motivation would have been to shift it to the client side for the verification,” noting simply that “[t]here are tradeoffs” associated with doing the verification processing on either the client or the server. Id. at 241:22– 242:13. Petitioner attempts to limit the impact of Dr. Mowry’s answers (Pet. Reply 16); however, the fact remains that Petitioner has the burden of proof, and it does not identify persuasive evidence to support its contention. Petitioner’s Reply asserts that these considerations were “particularly important in 2006, when 3G bandwidth was at a premium” (id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1029 ¶ 49)), but neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mowry provide analysis or evidence to support this conclusory assertion. Moreover, the Petition also fails to address whether the proposed combination would have, in fact, conserved communications resources or reduced delays. In Petitioner’s proposed combination, Byrne’s thin client application would be downloaded to Garcia’s mobile phone at each use (which would require communication resources and incur latency), but the Petition fails to address whether the net result of the proposed combination 148:1 (Dr. Mowry agreeing that the impact of downloading the thin client is not discussed in his report). Moreover, Garcia touts the “speed” of its process, stating that its “immediate processing . . . allows the immediate availability in the user’s account” (Ex. 1003, 7:18–8:3), which indicates that an ordinary artisan would not have perceived a problematic delay in Garcia’s system. Petitioner’s attempt to shift the burden to Patent Owner to determine whether or not its purported benefits would be realized (see Pet. Reply 17) is unavailing. In its Reply, Petitioner cites testimony from Dr. Mowry (see Ex. 1029 ¶ 37), but it simply compares the size of a compressed image with the size of a “large” application. This evidence does not outweigh the other evidence above, and it was submitted too late to remedy the Petition. See supra § II.A.; see also Trial Practice Guide 73 (explaining that a petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability”). Finally, on this record, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s” slip op. at 60
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application by downloading, onto the mobile device, a thin client application, as disclosed by Byrne. See Pet. 19–25. Byrne touts the benefits of downloading a thin client rather than storing an application on a user’s device (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45– 46; see also id. ¶¶ 47–48), and Dr. Mowry testifies that an ordinary artisan would have understood downloading a thin client to be a well-known way of distributing software in the relevant time period and suited for mobile devices (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 64–65, 70). In addition, Dr. Mowry testifies that a thin client improves security and ease of software maintenance. Id. ¶ 65 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 46–47); see also Ex. 1033, 140:11–141:2 (Dr. Creusere agreeing that thin clients “dramatically simplif[y]” software maintenance), 143:13–20 (agreeing that security is important for financial data); Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–21 (evidence that the general background knowledge in the art identifies security as a concern for remote check deposit).14 In addition, we agree with Petitioner (see Pet. 21–22; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 66, 72) that an ordinary artisan would have understood such an implementation to apply a known 14 Patent Owner’s argument that security and software maintenance would have instead weighed against the proposed combination (see, e.g., PO Sur-reply 9–10) is untimely because it was not advanced in the Response and is not fairly responsive to the Reply. See supra § II.A; Pet. Reply 15–16 (noting that the Response had not addressed these issues). Moreover, even if this argument had been properly raised, it would not be persuasive because Patent Owner does not identify persuasive evidence to support its position. See, e.g., Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). (Garcia’s mobile phone) with predictable results. We are also persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement Garcia’s application such that the application provides a user-interface and controls the image capture device, as disclosed by Byrne. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23. Garcia suggests that the application should perform these functions (see Ex. 1003, 5:1–6:10, 9:19– 10:18), and we credit Dr. Mowry’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would find this desirable (see Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 65, 67). Moreover, the references lend themselves to the combination because Garcia and Byrne both describe remotely depositing a check via the Internet using software on a user’s device that opens an interactive session, and both perform substantially similar steps. See Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1003, 9:21–10:3, 10:10–18, 11:7–15; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 41, 48, 174–175, 177–178. Finally, Dr. Mowry testifies that the ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination, and he provides supporting analysis and evidence. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 68–72; see also Ex. 1029 ¶¶ 38–39. We credit this testimony from Dr. Mowry because it draws reasonable inferences and is supported by the cited evidence.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 10,769,598 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,769,598 - Gen Digital Inc. v. Kajeet, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 13, 2023 · IPR2022-00001 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 5–15, 18–21, and 27–29 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 2 is not shown unpatentable. The revised motion to amend is denied for claims 31 and 35–45 and dismissed for claim 32.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Putzolu. We are also persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Putzolu’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Putzolu.” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“4. Putzolu and Bhat are Analogous Art Patent Owner contends that Putzolu and Bhat cannot be considered in” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“his analysis suffers from the same deficiencies as Patent Owner’s arguments and thus fails to sufficiently explain and support his conclusion on this point. See Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 32–40. Moreover, Mr. Sharma testifies that the term “communication device” is “broader” than the term “computing device” because a “communication device . . . might not do any computing,” and we find this to lack credibility. Id. ¶ 36; Ex. 1017, 34:9–35:12. This testimony is premised on Mr. Sharma’s assumption that a “computing” device must have “much more processing and intelligence on that device beyond just transmitting data” (Ex. 1007, 34:25–35:1), but this assumption is neither” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“4. Support in the Original Disclosure A motion to amend may not introduce new matter. 35 U.S.C.” slip op. at 68
Patent outcomesUS 8,667,559 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,667,559 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 22, 2023 · IPR2021-01343 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, and 18–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Baldwin; claims 6, 8, 11, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been a person with a “bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming or had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in digital video signal processing.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Petitioner also states that a person of ordinary skill would have been able to, among other things, encode and decode digital video signals, packetize, multiplex, and demultiplex encoded digital video signals for transmission, and implement modulation and channel coding. Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience in this or a related field.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2014 ¶ 20). Patent Owner states that its definition of a person of ordinary skill is similar to Petitioner’s definition and that any differences are not material. PO Resp. 13. We determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience in digital video signal processing or digital video streaming, which is consistent with the parties’ arguments, the ’014 patent, and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “video information” Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill would have understood that “video information” means “digital video data.” Pet. 16. Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s proposed construction and contends “video information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owner also states that the construction of “video information” is immaterial to this proceeding. PO Resp. 13. We do not discern a meaningful dispute between the parties regarding the meaning of “video information,” and we do not expressly interpret the term. 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.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Among other problems with these arguments, it is not clear how or where Petitioner relies on the proposed combination to satisfy any specific claim limitations. Petitioner argues each of Cooper and Baldwin teaches each limitation of each independent claim, and Petitioner presents its combination of references separate from its comparisons of Cooper and Baldwin to the claims, without clearly stating how the references are to be combined or how those combined teachings satisfy particular limitations. Because Petitioner fails to identify its proposed combination with sufficient clarity, we are also not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Cooper and Baldwin to yield the subject matter recited by the challenged claims. We also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Realtime Data suggests that Petitioner does not need to show a motivation to combine. Reply 27–29 (citing Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1373–74). Unlike here, in Realtime Data, the secondary reference was cited for the “sole purpose” of confirming that an element was disclosed in the primary reference. Id. In this case, Petitioner proposes combining some teachings from each of Baldwin and Cooper. See Pet. 19–20; Reply 27. Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has not articulated an adequate rationale to combine the references to arrive at any particular challenged claim.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Patent Owner contends, and we agree, that Cooper does not teach that its receiver identifies which of two streams is expected to result in a lower latency, as required by limitation [1d]. PO Resp. 36–52. Where Cooper describes receiving a multiplexed composite signal, Cooper teaches always identifying the normal mode packet stream for decoding when it is available, without regard to latency, and identifying the robust mode packet stream for decoding only when the normal mode packet stream is not available, such as when normal mode packets are lost. E.g., Ex. 1004, 7:8–8:28. In fact, it would be inconsistent with Cooper’s teachings for the receiver to select the robust mode packet stream when the normal mode packet stream is available: Cooper teaches that “[u]nder normal conditions, the error signal is not active on the error signal line E. In response, the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets . . . .” Ex. 1004, 7:32–37 (emphasis added). Although Cooper also teaches that its receiver can decode the robust mode packet stream to avoid “undue delay” “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” we find that Cooper does so only when the normal mode packet stream is not available. Ex. 1004, 17:23–45; see also Ex. 1004, 3:1–3. Specifically, Cooper states that “at the beginning of any broadcast or channel change,” there is a period of time (i.e., Tadv ) when the receiver’s delay device 220 is being filled. Ex. 1004, 17:23–26 (emphasis added). Cooper explains that waiting until delay device 220 is full would cause “undue delay when a receiver is switched on or a channel is changed.” Ex. 1004, 17:26–30. To address this delay, Cooper’s receiver decodes the robust mode packet stream, which “is immediately available,” so that a video signal can be presented until “the normal mode packet stream becomes available,” at which point the receiver switches to decoding the normal mode packet stream. Ex. 1004, 17:30–42. Consequently, we find that Cooper teaches that, at a channel change, its receiver receives (and decodes) the robust mode packet stream until it receives the normal mode packet stream. We disagree with Petitioner’s contrary argument that Cooper’s receiver receives both streams in this situation (see Reply 4–16), and, at a minimum, Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Cooper teaches or suggests this (see Ex. 2015, 82:22–85:13 (describing different scenarios but acknowledging that “Cooper doesn’t really illuminate either of these”)). Further, Cooper’s description of Figure 3 is consistent with our understanding of Cooper description of a channel change. Specifically, that portion of Cooper states: Time t0 may represent the time when the receiver is turned on, or when a user specifies a new content source to receive. During the time, Tadv, between t0 and t4, robust mode packets “a” to “j” are loaded into the delay device 220, and normal mode packets, designated “0” through “9” are received. At time t4, the normal mode packet “A” becomes available from the demultiplexer 210 and delayed robust mode packet “a” becomes available from the delay device 220. Under normal conditions, . . . the selector 230 couples the normal mode packet stream to the multi-standard decoder 240, and the multi-standard decoder 240 begins to generate the content representative signal from the normal mode packets, as described above. This is illustrated by the cross hatching 301 in the normal mode packets “A” through “G”. Ex. 1004, 7:24–39. Cooper includes this description in order to explain its typical operation as well as to illustrate the relative timing of the robust mode packet stream and the normal mode packet stream. See Ex. 1004, 7:24–25, 7:40–8:28. This passage teaches that normal mode packets designated with capital letters (e.g., “A”) are displayed after time t4 under normal conditions; however, it does not address which (if any) packets are displayed between time t0 and time t4. As a result, we understand this passage of Cooper to indicate that “0” to “9” are simply placeholders, which” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 8,646,014 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,646,014 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 6, 2023 · IPR2021-01298 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable, principally as obvious over Lee alone, Lee and Glance, or Lee and Smith; claim 30 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“of independent claim 1 is either taught or suggested by Lee. We are also persuaded that, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious, in view of Lee’s teachings, to arrive at the subject matter recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Lee.” slip op. at 57
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner
“arguments in Patent Owner’s Sur-reply that are allegedly untimely (Paper 38), and Patent Owner responded (Paper 39). For the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that the Sur-reply includes untimely new arguments, but we determine that those arguments would not have been persuasive even if they had been properly raised. See infra § II.E.1.b.ii (addressing Lee’s usage history).” slip op. at 3
Patent outcomesUS 10,911,938 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,911,938
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.