• Embody, Inc. / Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. v. Lifenet HealthSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00249 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 4–8 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 4–6 as obvious over Huang2 and Kuo, and claims 7–8 as anticipated by Huang2; claims 2–3 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “(“POSITA”) “would be a Ph.D. student with a minimum of two years of experience in their faculty advisor’s laboratory” and would have an understanding of “electrospinning fibers, including for tissue engineering, tissue engineering techniques, and using/performing FFT analysis.” Pet. 20– 21 (citing Ex. 1003 § II.C7). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal but specifies the set of disciplines within which the Ph.D. would have been earned, namely “bioengineering, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related engineering discipline.” PO Resp. 6. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposal as clarified by Patent Owner regarding the Ph.D. discipline.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “At the outset, we agree with Patent Owner that the Specification purports to define “major peaks” in the following sentence: “The ‘major peaks’ herein refer to peaks higher than the average of the peaks in the result.” Ex. 1001, 13:28–29. We determine that this language satisfies at least two of the criteria set forth in Alnylam. Specifically, the sentence at “refers to” to explain what qualifies as major peaks. That is not the end of the inquiry, however, as we find there is still some ambiguity as to whether the patentee intended to define “major peaks” so as to require so-called “minor peaks” in the claimed invention. See Bell Atlantic, 262 F.3d at 1268 (“[T]he intrinsic evidence must ‘clearly set forth’ or ‘clearly redefine’ a claim term so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.”). Importantly, the Specification does not treat the existence of minor peaks as prerequisites for the existence of major peaks. Indeed, the Specification does not discuss “minor peaks” at all. See generally Ex. 1001. Likewise, none of the claims of the ’227 patent, whether challenged or unchallenged, recites “minor peaks” or any additional peaks beyond the disputed “major peaks.” Id. at 23:30–24:42. Nor does the Specification include an example of FFT analysis results in which the average of the peaks therein is calculated and those higher than the average are identified as major peaks.8” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMixed

    “Petitioner has the better position. Huang2 teaches crosslinking and provides a reason for doing so (stability). In particular, Huang2 states: “To better mimic skin ECM, electrospun collagen fibers have been fabricated, however, the rapid degradation and poor mechanical properties determine that either crosslinking or combination with other materials is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold.” Ex. 1005, 1791 (emphasis added). It is true that, in describing work actually carried out, Huang2 states that blending with PCL was performed and does not mention crosslinking. See id. at 1792 (“Nanofibrous matrices of PCL and Collagen at a weight ratio of 3:1 were fabricated using electrospinning as previously described.”). However, the prior art – here, Huang2 – is not limited to that which it describes having created. See In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (C.C.P.A. 1972) (“a reference is not limited to the disclosure of specific working examples”); see also In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968) (“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.”); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“It is well settled that a prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Huang2 teaches two stabilization methods when using collagen in scaffolds. Huang2 states that one or the other “is necessary to obtain a stable scaffold” (when using collagen), but it does not preclude or teach away from using Patent Owner-cited testimony of Dr. Mikos is not as definitive as Patent Owner suggests; Dr. Mikos’s testimony is that a person of ordinary skill in the art “typically would not have done both.” Ex. 2015 ¶64 (emphasis added). The bottom line is that Huang2 teaches the person of ordinary skill in the art two ways to stabilize scaffolds/matrices comprised of collagen, provides a reason for doing so (stability), and does not teach away from using both. We are persuaded that a “scaffold comprising crosslinked fibers comprising collagen” would have been obvious in view of the cited teachings of Huang2.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Appellant’s citations to either reference. As discussed above, Petitioner’s Ground 1 is premised on a person of ordinary skill in the art altering the native flat sheet structure of Huang2 by rolling it into a jelly-roll structure as taught by Kuo. See Pet. 41 (Beginning its claim 2 arguments with the following: “Claim 1 is obvious for the reasons expressed above in § X.A., supra, which are incorporated herein.”); see also Pet. Reply 17 (“[B]ased on the explicit teaching of Kuo, a POSA would have been motivated to take the electrospun flat scaffold made by the techniques of Huang2, seed it with the desired cells, and roll it to treat a tendon and ligament.” (emphasis added)). Indeed, the paragraphs of Kuo that Petitioner cites for disclosing “scaffold sheets,” explicitly describe rolling them into jelly-roll like structures. See Ex. 1018 ¶7 (stating that “the sheet is spirally contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct”), ¶22 (describing a method comprising “forming a tissue construct by contacting a scaffold sheet of fibrous material with a cell; and rolling the scaffold sheet in a jelly-roll like manner to form a spirally wound tissue construct” and implanting it in a patient). Petitioner fails to argue that that “one or more elongated sheets” recited in claim 2 would encompass the rolled structure of its proposed modification. Nor does Petitioner articulate a claim construction argument that could support such an argument. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 2 would have been obvious over Huang2 and Kuo.” slip op. at 42

  Patent outcomesUS 11,318,227 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,318,227
• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached

    “have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,324,802
• Life Spine, Inc. v. Globus Medical, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,845,731
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00836 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 28

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00835 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over Kiss and FIPA97; the remaining remanded claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed all of our determinations of unpatentability of challenged claims. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *1. The Federal Circuit also affirmed our “determination of no proven unpatentability of claims 29–47 of the ’115 patent and claims 50–51 and 53–55 of the ’560 patent.” Id. The Federal Circuit reversed certain findings we made in concluding that claims 8–10, 63, and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10, 11, and 28 of the ’560 patent had not been proven unpatentable and remanded for further consideration of those claims. Id. Upon our authorization (Paper 45), the parties filed additional briefing limited to addressing the remanded claims. See Petitioner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 50, “Pet. Remand Opening Br.”), Patent Owner’s Remand Opening Brief (Paper 51, “PO Remand Opening Br.”), Petitioner’s Remand Response Brief (Paper 53,” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “In the context of claim 1 from which claim 8 depends, Petitioner argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 7,069,560 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,069,560
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00814 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  Claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Kiss and FIPA97; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the ’560 patent, we found in the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to show how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97 to obtain the recited subject matter of these claims. 810 Final Dec. 145–149; 814 Final Dec. 135; 835 Final Dec. 108. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed our finding and remanded “for the Board to address any remaining obviousness disputes concerning these claims.” Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. On remand, Patent Owner appears to disagree with the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Petitioner failed to show how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kiss and FIPA97. PO Remand Opening Br. 2–9; PO Remand Resp. Br. 2. In response, Petitioner argues Patent Owner’s argument is improper because the mandate rule “prevents parties from raising issues on remand that were within the scope of the judgment appealed from and resolved by the appellate court.” Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 3–4 (citing Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner further argues that the Federal Circuit has expressly resolved the question of whether the Petition has sufficiently set forth “the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of the cited combination” in favor of Petitioner and, therefore, we should not address or revisit the issue on remand. Id. at 7. We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00811 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable under § 103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decisions, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had “a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or equivalent field and at least two years of work experience in design and development of distributed systems, software specification languages, or a related area.” 810 Final Dec. 12; 811 Final Dec. 12; 814 Final Dec. 11; 835 Final Dec. 12; 836 Final Dec. 12. We see no reason to depart from this determination, which the parties did not challenge on appeal.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Microsoft Corporation v. Ipa Technologies Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2022 · IPR2019-00810 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8 and 86–89 of the ’115 patent and claims 10 and 11 of the ’560 patent were held unpatentable under §103; claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim …

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner’s argument. We disagree with and reject Patent Owner’s argument in its remand papers directed to Petitioner’s reasons for the cited combination as being inconsistent with the Federal Circuit’s decision, which determined that Petitioner has shown sufficiently and FIPA97 to obtain the subject matter recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *3–5. Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s decision and mandate, we address below the remaining obviousness disputes concerning claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent. In the Final Written Decisions in the 810 IPR, 814 IPR, and 835 IPR, we did not reach the issue of whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the cited combination teaches or suggests all limitations of these claims. See 810 Final Dec. 144– 149; 814 Final Dec. 132–135; 835 Final Dec. 106–109. We do so now and address the parties’ disputes regarding the teachings of the cited prior art as they relate to the limitations recited in claims 8–10 and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent.” slip op. at 23

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “argued in the Petition that a “trigger” recited in claim 1 (see Ex. 1001, 29:10–24) is “a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when one or more conditions is met.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:21–22:31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81). Patent Owner did not dispute Petitioner’s proposed meaning of “trigger” recited in claim 1. See PO Resp. 24–38. In the Final Written Decision in the 810 IPR, we adopted this undisputed interpretation of “trigger” because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. 810 Final Dec. 120 (citing Ex. 1001, 21:22–24 (“triggers [provide] a general mechanism for requesting some action be taken when a set of conditions is met”)). This claim construction was not appealed and, as noted above, the Federal Circuit did not address the construction of this claim term. See Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403. Considering the full record, we see no reason to depart from the claim construction of the term “trigger” the same claim construction for purposes of this Remand Decision. Petitioner and Dr. Lieberman proposed the same interpretation for the claim term “trigger” recited in claim 8. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 371. We agree with this construction because claim 8 incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1 from which it depends and the same terms appearing in different portions of a claim should be given the same meaning absent compelling evidence to the contrary. See Paragon Sols., LLC v. Timex Corp., 566 F.3d 1075, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We apply a presumption that the same terms appearing in different portions of the claims should be given the same meaning unless it is clear from the specification and prosecution history that the terms have different meanings at different portions of the claims.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (citations omitted)); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning.”). We also agree with Dr. Lieberman’s proposed interpretation of the claim term “trigger declaration” as “a statement in a program that specifies the characteristics of a trigger” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 371) because the construction is consistent with the disclosure in the Specification. See Ex. 1001, 17:5–9 (“Each registered agent may be optionally associated with one or more triggers, which preferably could be referenced through their associated Trigger Declaration fields 712 in the parent facilitator Agent Registry 702.”); see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 374 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:5–9, Fig. 7).” slip op. at 27

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

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because, as discussed above, Dr. Lieberman persuasively explained that in FIPA97’s FIPA-AVEB- Request-Notification contract-net “[t]he GA is responsible for the creation and management of a content index, and uses this index to respond to requests from the CA” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 373 (citing Ex. 1011, 11)) and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, for the GA to monitor for changes over a given time period and inform the CA of any changes to the status of a specific AV program that conform to a precondition “preconditions2” within that period, “the agent registry must include declaration functionality” for preconditions relating to the status of AV programs (id. ¶ 374). We are persuaded that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the GA’s context index (the claimed “agent registry data structure”) includes a statement of a precondition relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. In its remand paper, Patent Owner argues that “nothing in Part 6 FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a General Agent as asserted by Petitioner.” PO Remand Resp. Br. 7 (underlined emphasis added). Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing because Petitioner’s asserted theory of unpatentability is one of obviousness, not anticipation. Thus, Petitioner need not show “FIPA97 explicitly teaches that a precondition2 is stored within a [Guide] Agent,” as Patent Owner demands. See id. For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner set forth sufficient evidence in the Petition to show that the cited disclosures of FIPA97 at least would have suggested to a person of ordinary structure”) includes a statement of a precondition (the claimed “trigger declaration”) relating to a specific AV program listed in the content index. Thus, we determine that the Petition establishes sufficiently that FIPA97 teaches or suggests “the agent registry data structure includes at least one trigger declaration for one active agent,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 29

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We note, as an initial matter, that it is Petitioner’s burden to explain how the challenged claims should be construed and how, as so construed, they are unpatentable. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3)–(4). Despite having been afforded an opportunity on remand to address our claim construction set forth in the Final Written Decisions, Petitioner does not address in its how the cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation under our construction. See Pet. Remand Opening Br. 3–5, 7. Thus, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 9, 10, and 63 of the ’115 patent and claim 28 of the ’560 patent are unpatentable over the combination of Kiss and FIPA97. In addition, for the reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s cited evidence does not show sufficiently that the cited prior art teaches or suggests “process characteristics” recited in the claims under our construction of the term—i.e., “characteristics of a process for an agent.” As noted above, Petitioner argued during trial that FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is “analogous to both the Machine Type and Language examples [of Process Characteristics] from the specification.” See Pet. Reply 78. On remand, Petitioner does not present this “similarity” argument. See generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Although Petitioner’s argument on the alleged similarity of FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” to the Specification’s examples of Process Characteristics may be relevant to the question of whether FIPA97 teaches or suggests the recited “process characteristics” under our construction, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has cited sufficient evidence to show FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Specification’s Machine Type and Language examples. First, Petitioner did not explain during trial, nor does it explain on remand, why FIPA97’s “interaction-protocols” parameter is analogous to the Machine Type and Language examples in the Specification. See Pet. Reply 78; see generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. In addition, Petitioner did not cite, nor does it cite on remand, any declaration generally Pet. Remand Opening Br., Pet. Remand Resp. Br. Petitioner’s argument, therefore, is conclusory and unpersuasive as unsupported attorney argument. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence or explanation in support of a conclusion.”); Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Lab., Inc., 429 F.3d 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”).” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 6,851,115 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,851,115
• Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 12, 2021 · IPR2019-01195 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 13 and 14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Kim; claims 17, 18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Kim and Lee because the proposed combination was inadequately explained.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “’026 patent would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49). In our Institution Decision, we found Petitioner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, see Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978), and, therefore, preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Neither Patent Owner, in its Response, nor Dr. Annavaram, in his declaration, proposes a level of ordinary skill in the art. Instead, Patent Owner states that “Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s stated skill level for this response” (PO Resp. 26), and Dr. Annavaram similarly states that “[f]or the purpose of this declaration, I adopt Dr. Harris’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]” (Ex. 2009 ¶ 24). Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Based on the complete record, because our preliminary finding is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, plus at least two years of experience in integrated circuit design, or alternatively a Bachelor’s degree in one of those fields plus at least four years of experience in integrated circuit design. Inst. Dec. 15; see Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 49).” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “To the extent Patent Owner argues that these particularized selection clauses recited in different claims must have the same or similar meaning because they all use the word “selecting” (see PO Resp. 28–29), we disagree with Patent Owner. See IGT v. Bally Gaming Int’l, Inc., 659 F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We caution that claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. Extracting a single word from a claim divorced from the surrounding limitations can lead construction astray. Claim language must be construed in the claim in which it appears.” (emphasis added)). The selection clauses recited in these claims are plainly different on the face of the claims when considering the material differences in the claim language set forth above. According the same meaning to the limitations that recite “select . . . based on” indicators, “select . . . when” certain conditions are met, and “select . . . out of a group” of values would be improper because it would blur the material differences in the claim language recited expressly in the claims. Instead, we interpret the selection clauses recited in the challenged claims “in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears” and “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In other words, we do not construe the single word “selecting” in isolation, but, rather, interpret the full selection clauses recited in the challenged claims in the context of the entire patent. Claim 13 recites “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator.” In our view, the plain meaning of this limitation is clear on the face of the claim—a value of a control signal is selected based on two indicators, the mode indicator and the leakage indicator.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Tr. 47:7–23. Because the output of Kim’s NAND gates will be different depending on the value of Kim’s memory cells C1–CN allowed to “pass through,” we agree with Petitioner that the value of Kim’s memory cells C1– CN (the claimed “leakage indicator”) “plays a role” in deciding what the output of Kim’s NAND gates (the claimed “value of the control signal”) will be. Moreover, Patent Owner acknowledged that the output of Kim’s NAND gate is determined based on the inputs to the NAND gates (i.e., the sleep signal input and the memory cell signal input). JUDGE CHUNG: But, knowing a little bit about how a NAND gate works, isn’t it the case that the input to the NAND gates, G1 through GN, with the input of the sleep signal and the C1 through CN signal, isn’t it the case that input to the NAND gate determines what the output is? MS. ZHONG: Okay. So any logic gate, the output will depend on the input. That’s for sure. Tr. 44:18–25; but see id. at 45:3–10 (stating that even if the “output is in control of the input, . . . that does not mean the selection is based on that input”). Thus, we find that Kim’s NAND gate (the claimed “control circuit”) operates to determine its output (the claimed “value of the control signal”) based on its input of the sleep signal (the claimed “mode indicator”) and the memory cell value input (the claimed “leakage indicator”). As discussed in Section III.B, the Specification indicates that “select[ing] the value of the control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator” recited in claim 13 is synonymous to determining the value based on the recited indicators. See Ex. 1101, 4:4–11. Thus, the evidence of record shows that Kim teaches “selecting, by the control circuit, a value of a control signal based on the mode indicator and on the leakage indicator,” as recited in claim 13.” slip op. at 44

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and evidence. First, although Petitioner proposes “[s]ubstituting Lee’s inputs of leakage current and temperature for generating a power gate control signal” (i.e., Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)”) for “Kim’s inputs of leakage current and other ‘stimuli’ for generating a power gate control signal” (Pet. 64 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 115)), neither Petitioner nor Dr. Harris explains adequately how they are proposing to “substitute” Kim’s control signal with Lee’s “control signal (BIAS).” For example, Figure A reproduced above does not show how Petitioner or Dr. Harris proposes to use Lee’s “control signal (BIAS)” in the proposed combination. Petitioner asserts that “[a]lthough Lee’s control signal is analog and Kim’s control signal is digital, it was well known to apply teachings in an analog domain to a digital domain, and conversions between analog and digital domains were easy to implement.” Pet. 66 (emphases added) (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 121; Ex. 1115). Dr. Harris similarly states that Figures A and B show examples of obvious ways to use in Kim’s system Lee’s teaching of setting conductance of the array based on temperature. A POSA would have found both of these ways obvious. That Lee uses an analog control signal and Kim uses a digital control signal would have presented no obstacle to a POSA. . . . That is, converting analog circuit elements and signals to digital was well known long before the ’026 patent. Ex. 1102 ¶ 121 (emphases added) (citing (Ex. 1115) (“Analog-to-digital converters (ADC’s) are ubiquitous, critical components of software radio and other signal processing systems.”)). But Dr. Harris does not explain adequately how “to use in Kim’s system” the digitized BIAS signal of Lee. See id. The only additional input signal shown in Figure A compared to Figure 4 of Kim is the temperature line that has the value of 0 when the temperature is cold and the value of 1 when the temperature is hot. See Ex. 1102 ¶ 116 (Fig. A). There is no explanation of how the modified teaching of the BIAS signal of Lee (i.e., modified or converted to a digital signal) would have worked in the proposed combination of Figure A.” slip op. at 69

  Patent outcomesUS 8,081,026 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,081,026

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.