- Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00531 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 and 13–15 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claim 12 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–15 of the ’698 patent. Discretionary denial of institution was determined to be not appropriate in this proceeding, and the proceeding was referred to the Board. Paper 10. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–15 of the ’698 patent on all presented challenges. Paper 11 (“Inst. Dec.”), 15.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 (2025). For the reasons that follow, we determine that Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 and 13–15, but not claim 12, of U.S. Patent No. 9,168,698 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’698 patent”) are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
Patent outcomesUS 9,168,698 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,698 - Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01287 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable over Bernstein alone or with Tsuge; claims 1–3 and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to teach required limitations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or comparable degree or 2–3 years industry experience designing and/or maintaining back-end networking equipment.” Pet. 11. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not contest Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art, because even under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill,” Petitioner “has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, finding that it was consistent with the ’982 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“Following the Institution Decision, both parties submitted proposed claim constructions in the district court stating that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2009, 3–4 (Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart); Ex. 2010, 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart). Patent Owner states in the Patent Owner Response that “[t]he parties now agree that the entire preambles of both claims 1 and 6 are limiting.” PO Resp. 17. In its Reply, Petitioner states that “whether the Board finds the phrase ‘service auto-configuration’” in the preamble to be limiting is “immaterial” because it “does not affect the analysis of whether the prior art cited in the petition invalidates [the challenged] claims.” Pet. Reply 5. At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it does not dispute that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting. Tr. 20:25–21:17, 23:15–17. Because the parties agreed in district court that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting, and also agree in this proceeding, we find that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limiting for purposes of this Decision. We will discuss the meaning of the preamble further in the sections below applying the prior art to the claims. See §§ III.A..4(a), III.A.7, III.C.1(a), III.C.7, infra.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Based on the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we do not need to, and do not, construe any other claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. 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.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show that Bernstein recites a “service auto-configuration” method as recited in the preamble of claim 1. As discussed above, the parties agree that the preamble of claim 1, including the “service auto-configuration method” language, is limiting. See § II.B, supra. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the Petition does not set forth a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how the prior art discloses a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 11, 24; Inst. Dec. 32. Instead, the Petition merely explains how Bernstein teaches “a DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON (DPoE) system,” without explaining how it teaches a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 59). By failing to offer a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how this limitation is met by the prior art, the Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,287,982 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,287,982 - Nokia Of America Corporation / AT&T Services, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00899 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 11, and 14 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 4, 12, 13, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the asserted § 103 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 5. Also, neither party argues that the precise level of ordinary skill would be dispositive in this proceeding. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because it is undisputed, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’892 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:19–2:8.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The evidence of record, including the ’892 patent and its prosecution history,9 indicates that the ordinary and customary meaning of “transitioning . . . from . . . to” encompasses both direct and indirect transitions. Looking first to the claim language itself, the word “directly” appears in claims 1, 6, and 10, but not claim 14, presumptively suggesting that claim 14 was intended to more broadly capture systems with either direct or indirect transitions. See CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”). Holding otherwise would fail to give any effect to the word “direct” as it appears in claims 1, 6, and 10. See Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc., 508 F.3d 1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (denouncing claim constructions methodologies that render phrases in claims superfluous).” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther
“predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74. We also agree with Petitioner that there would have been motivation” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find persuasive Petitioner’s arguments that it would have been a predictable and well-motivated variation of G.987.3, at the time of the claimed invention, to include a direct transition between the ONU’s two low-power states. See KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, . . . . If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). We credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce power consumption and would have looked to ways of modifying G.987.3 to further that design goal. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; see also Ex. 1007, 97 (“For a variety of reasons, it is desirable to reduce the power consumed by an ONU as much as possible . . . .”). We also credit Dr. Sergienko’s testimony that there were only a small number of ways to modify the state transitions in G.987.3’s ONU, and that it would have been obvious to consider those possibilities. Ex. 1003 ¶ 70. Patent Owner does not contest this. Dr. Litvin concedes, for Patent Owner, that “there is no conceivable way the [ITU] did not consider the proposed transition” between the ONU’s two low-power states when drafting G.987.3, although he contends the standards body prohibited such direct transitions as “a conscious and reasoned design choice.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 109 (opining that there were only four possible choices for transitions in the ONU, and the ITU “undoubtedly considered all of them, including the direct transition from . . . Listen and . . . Asleep”); PO Resp 24 (conceding that “G.987 explicitly considered the very direct transitions that Petitioner say would be used”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s additional or alternative argument that Röger would have motivated modifying G.987.3 by allowing the ONU, while in sleep mode, to periodically turn on its receiver and check for messages from the OLT, which would have been direct transitions between “first” and “second” states as recited in claim 1. Pet. 20–22 & n.4; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 82–84. The evidence suggests that modifying G.987 as Petitioner proposes would have been within the abilities of a person of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention—either to add a direct transition between Listen and Asleep states or to allow the ONU, while in its sleep (both transmitter and receiver off) mode, to periodically turn on its receiver temporarily to listen for polling messages from the OLT, as Röger teaches. Pet. 11–12, 14–15, 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 70, 74.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 9,806,892 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,806,892 - Fusion Orthopedics, LLC v. Extremity Medical, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 4, 2024 · IPR2023-00894 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 and 12–15 are unpatentable; claim 11 was not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 16–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable over Mazur; claim 26 was not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenMixed
“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). Here, however, not until its Reply does Petitioner belatedly suggest that Ferrante’s disclosure of bone screws with self-tapping ends equally meets the limitation of claim 10 (with respect to the first member) as with claim 11 (with respect to the second member), and that both claims are obvious in light of “evidence” from Ferrante “that it was well known to equip bone screws with self-tapping ends.” Reply 26–27. We do not discern these arguments in the Petition, and consider them waived. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371,1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“While the Board should not take an overly mechanistic view of a petition and decline to address an argument because the petitioner did not present it with ideal vigor and clarity, the Board should also not have to decode a petition to locate additional arguments beyond the ones clearly made.”). In sum, Petitioner’s error in failing to first address limitations of claim 10 in the Petition specific to the Cognet/Ferrante combination indicates a failure to meet the particularity requirements for what must be in the petition and cannot be left to be filled in on reply. See 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(2) (requiring, among other things, “a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence”), 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (requiring that petition “specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publication relied upon” and, regarding submitted evidence, state “the relevance of the evidence to the challenge raised, including identifying specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge”). Microsoft, 2022 WL 989403, at *6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown persuasively that claim 11 would have been obvious in light of Cognet and Ferrante for the reasons set forth in the Petition. slip op. at 41
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Mr. Dominguez’s explanation that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as including stepped diameter holes, sometimes described as a bore having a counterbore. See generally Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 4–29; Reply 3–10. Three of Mr. Dominguez’s illustrative examples are reproduced in the annotated figures below. The above figures show Mr. Dominguez’s annotated illustrations from the Jackson (Ex. 1019, Fig. 3), Brånemark (Ex. 1021, Fig. 4), and Ray (Ex. 1025, Fig. 1) references as discussed at paragraphs 10, 12, and 13, respectively, of Mr. Dominguez’s Second Declaration. With reference to the above figures, Mr. Dominguez testifies that “Jackson describes a bone repair set screw in which ‘[t]he bore 27 comprises a first bore section 31, a second bore section 32,’ etc. delineated by shoulders 41, 42, etc. (Ex. 1019, 5:24– 43)” (Ex. 1018 ¶ 10); “Brånemark describes an osseous implantation device having body 1ʺ with first and second holding portions 21ʺ, 31ʺ and ‘an inner through bore with a first portion 4ʺ in the first holding portion and a second portion 5ʺ in the second holding portion.’” Ex. 1021, 4:44–46” (id. ¶ 12); and Ray discloses surgical calipers including “handle 12 having ‘stepped cylindrical bore 14,’” wherein “[c]ollar 20 of a shaft inserted in the bore ‘rests against a step of the bore 14’ (2:14–15)” (id. ¶ 13). Patent Owner responds that Mr. Dominguez’s examples “that allegedly show a single bore encompassing two or more stepped-diameter holes or a counterbore . . . . are specific to these references and divorced from the disclosures of the ’166 patent.” Sur-Reply 7. Insofar as the ’166 patent makes no mention of the term “bore” outside the claims, and Mr. Dominguez’s examples are all taken from the field of orthopedic surgery, we do not find this argument persuasive. Patent Owner further appears to contend that exemplary references to a “cylindrical stepped down bore” or a “stepped cylindrical bore” are too specific to be within the scope of the term “bore.” Sur-Reply 7–8. As these terms merely describe species within a larger genus, and Patent Owner presents no cogent reason to exclude them, we do not find this argument availing. Relatedly, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that “the prior art treats a ‘bore’ as an element that is distinct from a ‘counterbore.’” Id. at 8. Rather, we credit Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] counterbore is not a structure unto itself, a counterbore is part of a larger structure” as exemplified by numerous examples including Laps (Ex. 1028 ¶ 33 (sensor assembly wherein “bore 16 includes a counterbore 18”)); Martinez (Ex. 1029, 3:61 (surgical cutting instrument wherein “bore 56 has a counterbore 64”)); Zang (Ex. 1030, 2:49 (bone anchor having a “bore [that] includes a counterbore”)); Ledet (Ex. 1022, 29:3–5 (vertebral fixation plate having “through holes . . . . countersunk, or counterbored to accommodate the head of a bone screw”)); Seo (Ex. 1031, 3:45 (chair leg employing “counterbored bore 23”)); and Exner (Ex. 1032, 2:16 (extrusion press including “counterbored axial bore 6”)). Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 17–23. That a reference may refer to a figure as showing “bore 103” with “counterbore 105 . . . formed on one end” does not indicate that they are distinct structures as Patent Owner contends, but merely that the focus of each term is directed to the entire bore or to a particular aspect of the bore, i.e., its counterbore. See” slip op. at 22
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner subsequently proposed an alternative definition, as a person having “[a] Bachelor’s Degree in biomedical and/or mechanical engineering or similar training and . . . at least three years of experience with implant devices used for internal fixation of bones.” POR 5 (citing Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 32–33). According to Patent Owner, “[t]his hypothetical person would be capable of performing various design tasks and would understand the basic mechanical features and operation of orthopaedic implant devices [and] have an appreciation for orthopaedic fusion techniques and the medical issues and concerns faced by a doctor/surgeon charged when performing operations to implant orthopaedic devices.” Id. Despite some differences in wording, Patent Owner asserts (and Petitioner does not contest) that any “distinction between the parties’ proposed definitions of a POSITA does not affect the arguments set forth herein.” Id. (citing Ex. 2012 ¶ 34). Consistent with this view, we find the parties’ constructions equally applicable in light of the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’166 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). We adopt, for convenience, Petitioner’s definition, but our analysis does not change depending on which of the two articulations are applied here. H.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “bore,” as used in the context of claims 1 and 12, encompasses a multi-diameter passage, and in particular, one having stepped longitudinal cross sections such as that shown in Cognet’s Figure 1. See generally DI 11–13. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “bore” as such. Relying on the testimony of Mr. Dominguez, Petitioner initially proposed a construction of “bore” as “a usually cylindrical hole made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 58). Petitioner’s proposal relied on Mr. Dominguez’s testimony that “[a] bore is a cylindrical hole made by the spinning rotation of a twist drill cutting tool. It is typically made by removing material from a solid or hollow object, similar to a tunnel or orifice.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 58. Pointing to its annotation of Cognet’s Figure 1, above, Patent Owner argued that that the term “bore” excludes a tunnel made by “two adjacent bores.” See Prelim. Resp. 21–25. In view of the then-available evidence, we provisionally construed “bore” as a hole or passage made by or as if by the turning or twisting movement of a tool such that its interior walls have cylindrical lateral cross-sections, and which do not exclude holes or passages having tapered or stepped longitudinal cross-sections. DI 13.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 11,298,166 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,298,166 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Corrigent CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00169 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a); claims 11 and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Relying on Dr. Houh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the networking art that is pertinent to the ’431 patent, including network communications techniques and bandwidth management methodologies,” and “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications including the use of logical topologies and bandwidth management. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner’s articulation of that level of skill is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’431 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:5–6:14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We see no significant difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of in response to as “using” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction as “using information from.” Thus, it does not appear that the construction of in response to is genuinely in controversy. Thus, we need not construe the term for this decision. 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.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we need to interpret any other claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Considering the evidence of record on both sides, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that Baker teaches a “mapping” as recited in limitation 1.4. Baker’s disclosure of a “mapping” is explicit. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 69, 83. And the evidence shows that this mapping occurs “in advance of a communication,” and may, for example, take place in the head node as part of the Administer Ring routine. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 51–56, 76. That intermediate rings are ultimately configured to simply forward traffic “according to preconfigured rules” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 87) rather than to perform more complicated routing has no pertinent bearing on the process corresponding to the recited “mapping” step, which occurs “in advance” of the communication and any such forwarding (id. ¶ 76).” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“allocating bandwidth as part of its resources and that, in light of Wright, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this allocation for each of the links in of the physical topology (see Ex. 1006 ¶ 18 (“bandwidth allocation at each link”)) using information from both (1) the bandwidth requirements of Baker’s logical connections and (2) the mapping between Baker’s logical and physical topologies. As Petitioner persuasively argues, we find that Wright’s teaching of further details on ensuring the availability of bandwidth, in a similar context, would have been sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wright’s teachings into Baker’s method. We also determine that whether Wright, itself, teaches a mapping step is not the determining factor because Petitioner relies on Baker, not Wright, for teaching mapping limitation 1.4. Nevertheless, Wright does teach allocating bandwidth using the same information that would be available as a result of Baker’s mapping, including the logical (“restricted”) topology and the physical links associated with that topology. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that allocating bandwidth to the physical links (step 510 of Figure 5) requires knowing which physical links correspond to Wright’s restricted topology. See Pet. 36; Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–51. We also disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Baker’s method to apply Wright’s teachings on bandwidth allocation, such as how Baker’s head node N0 would have been modified. See PO Resp. 31–32. Based on the level of ordinary skill and the level of detail in Baker, Wright, and the ’431 patent, and crediting Dr. Houh’s testimony, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that such modification would have been within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 17–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46, 48). And we agree with Petitioner that modifying Baker with Wright’s teachings would have been “nothing more than the combination of known elements . . . according to known methods . . . to yield predictable results.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47).” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 7,330,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,330,431 - Arista Networks, Inc. v. Corrigent CorporationSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2024 · IPR2023-00515 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12–22, and 24–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103; claims 11 and 23 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“For reasons explained in the Petition and Petitioner’s Reply, we agree with Petitioner that the Baker–Wright–Holender ’699 combination teaches summing the two bandwidths determined in “allocating” steps 12.5 and 12.7 to determine a total allocation for each of the physical links—motivated by the known need to ensure that bandwidths do not exceed the available physical link capacity. We disagree with Patent Owner that Holender ’699’s discussion of summing is merely describing a physical constraint. Holender ’699 teaches normalizing the logical link capacities, which requires summing the logical link capacities. See Ex. 1007, 8:38–51. We credit Dr. Houh’s testimony that this “confirms that [Holender ’699’s] teachings about summing are not simply ‘explaining a physical constraint,’ but actually performed.” Ex. 1036 ¶ 61. Holender ’699 refers to capacities 𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗 as “logical link capacities for each logical link j over all logical networks. Ex. 1007, 6:52–55. But when mapped to physical links, Holender ’699 denotes capacities 𝐶𝐶𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 as “capacities of the logical links [𝑙𝑙] that need capacity on the k:th physical link.” Ex. 1007, 8:38–43. In other words, they are the capacities, or bandwidths, allocated to each physical link 𝑘𝑘 for implementing associated logical link 𝑙𝑙. See also id. at 6:60–67 (describing a matrix designed to indicate “if logical link j needs capacity on the k:th physical link.”).” slip op. at 50
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on Dr. Houh’s testimony, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the networking art that is pertinent to the ’431 patent, including network communications techniques and bandwidth management methodologies,” and “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to network communications including the use of logical topologies and bandwidth management. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 3. Because Petitioner’s articulation of that level of skill is uncontested, supported by testimonial evidence, and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’431 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:5–6:14.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“necessary because the construction does not resolve any contested issues. Pet. Reply 8–10 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 16, 62; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5, 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–50). But if a construction is necessary, Petitioner argues that the we should construe in response to as “using,” consistent with how the claimed invention is described in the ’431 patent. Id. at 10–11 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:52–6:10, 8:52–9:2; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 7–11). Petitioner disagrees that the term means “based on” because limitation 1.3 uses the phrase based on, suggesting that the applicant made a conscious decision to use different language in limitation 1.5. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶ 11). Patent Owner responds that its two proposed constructions are synonymous, and argues that Petitioner agrees that in response to encompasses “using” or “using information from.” PO Sur-reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:22–26). Patent Owner contends that its proposed construction resolves a controversy because in Patent Owner’s view, the Baker–Wright combination does not use information from the recited mapping to allocate bandwidth. Id. at 9–12 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 5, 17, 24; Ex. 2009, 52–56; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 62–76). Similarly, Patent Owner contends that Holender ’699 does not teach mapping. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007, 3:15–17; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 89–92). We see no significant difference between Petitioner’s proposed construction of in response to as “using” and Patent Owner’s proposed construction as “using information from.” Thus, it does not appear that the construction of in response to is in controversy. Thus, we need not construe the term for this decision. 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.’” (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we need to interpret any other claim language, we address that language below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s arguments persuasive that Baker teaches allocating bandwidth as part of its resources and that, in light of Wright and Holender ’699, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to make this allocation for each of the links in of the physical topology (see Ex. 1006 ¶ 18 (“bandwidth allocation at each link”)) using information from both (1) the bandwidth requirements of Baker’s logical connections and (2) the mapping between Baker’s logical and physical topologies. As Petitioner persuasively argues, we find that Wright’s teaching of further details on ensuring the availability of bandwidth, in a similar context, would have been sufficient motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wright’s teachings into Baker’s method. Holender ’669 provides further supporting disclosure. We also determine that whether Wright, itself, teaches a mapping step is not the determining factor because Petitioner relies on Baker, not Wright, for teaching mapping limitation 1.4. Nevertheless, Wright does teach allocating bandwidth using the same information that would be available as a result of Baker’s mapping, including the logical (“restricted”) topology and the physical links associated with that topology. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that allocating bandwidth to the physical links (step 510 of Figure 5) requires knowing which physical links correspond to Wright’s restricted topology. See Pet. 33; Pet. Reply 22–23; Ex. 1007 ¶ 17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–96; Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 49–51. We also disagree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to adequately explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Baker’s method to apply Wright’s teachings on bandwidth allocation, such as how Baker’s head node N0 would have been modified. See PO Resp. 31–32. Based on the level of ordinary skill and the level of detail in Baker, Wright, and the ’431 patent, and crediting Dr. Houh’s testimony, we find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that such modification would have been within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art. See Pet. 9–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 42–46, 48; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 100–101). And we agree with Petitioner that modifying Baker with Wright’s teachings would have been “nothing more than the combination of known elements . . . according to known methods . . . to yield predictable results.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47; Ex. 1021 ¶¶ 102–104).” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 7,330,431 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,330,431 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-01195 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10, 12–14, 16–18, 20–23, 25–28, 35, 37–39, and 42–45 are unpatentable; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition,” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner contends that the Petition and supporting evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Schmandt, does not demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have been able to fabricate an integrated circuit. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not also be expected to have specialized knowledge in integrated circuit fabrication in Petitioner does not present arguments to the contrary. See generally Reply. We agree with Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.3 Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:27 (describing in the “Background of Invention” section of the ’789 patent various speech recognition systems and methods). We also agree with Patent Owner, and rely on the supporting testimony of Dr. Anderson, in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the field of integrated circuit fabrication, and would not have had the education, experience, or skill necessary to fabricate an integrated circuit.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that state memory 342 of Smyth is fabricated on the same integrated circuit as processor 341. Petitioner, in asserting that processor 341 and state memory 342 are on the same integrated circuit, cites the following testimony of Mr. Schmandt: In my opinion, the Motorola DSP56000 provides both memory and a processor fabricated on a single integrated circuit (IC). Kloker (Ex. 1009), 1 (discussing the Motorola DSP56000 includes “a core processor, RAM, ROM, peripheral interfaces, and a memory expansion interface on a single, 88-pin chip[”)]. . . . A POSITA would have understood or at least found obvious that Smyth thus teaches a single IC on which both classifier processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated. Ex. 1003 ¶ 165; Pet. 39. We do not credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Smyth’s disclosure. Smyth discloses that classifier 34 comprises classifying processor 341 and state memory 342, and that “classifying processor 341 may be a suitably programmed digital signal processing (DSP) device.” Ex. 1005, 5:55–57, 6:5–6. Thus, Smyth itself, in discussing classifier 34, distinguishes processor 341 from state memory 342 in stating that only processor 341, and not both processor 341 and state memory 342, may be located on the DSP. describe processor 341 and state memory 342 as being fabricated on a single integrated circuit. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–37. Dr. Anderson persuasively explains that processor 341 and state memory 342 could not be fabricated on the same integrated circuit, because the design of the DSP for processor 341 does not include any memory that meets the requirements of state memory 342. Id. ¶¶ 38–45. We rely on the testimony of Dr. Anderson in finding that Petitioner has not shown that Smyth teaches that processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated on a single integrated circuit.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Therefore, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Reply 23–24. We find that this contention was untimely presented in the Reply. We do not permit Petitioner to propose a mapping of the prior art in the Petition and then completely change that mapping after Patent Owner argues the initial mapping was flawed. 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.” TPG 73; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. eWatch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”).” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner. Petitioner has not shown that any of the integrated circuits cited in the Petition would have been able to include the claimed acoustic model memory. Further, we find, contrary to Petitioner’s contention, that Patent Owner did not admit that procuring a processor and a memory capable of storing an acoustic model memory fabricated on an integrated circuit was within the level of ordinary skill. To the contrary, throughout the entire proceeding, Patent Owner has consistently argued that the claimed “calculating apparatus and the acoustic model memory are fabricated on a single integrated circuit” was unknown in the prior art. Petitioner has not shown that using the prior art elements relied on in the Petition according to their established functions would have resulted in “the calculating apparatus and the acoustic model memory are fabricated on a single integrated circuit” as recited in claim 1. In summary, Petitioner relies on Mozer to teach the benefits of fabricating a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory on the same integrated circuit, but Mozer does not teach a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory fabricated on the same integrated circuit. Further, the benefits of Mozer identified by Petitioner are benefits that both Mozer and Smyth already have, without fabricating the calculating apparatus and the acoustic model memory on the same integrated circuit. Also, even if Petitioner had shown there was a reason to combine Smyth and Mozer, Petitioner does not persuasively show that the combination teaches “the calculating apparatus and the acoustic model memory are fabricated on a single integrated circuit” as recited in claim 1. The Petition identifies only model memory for storing an acoustic model defining a plurality of acoustic states” as claimed, which is the one that “a POSITA would have been motivated . . . to fabricate” (Pet. 44), which was beyond the level of ordinary skill. We find that the Petition has not shown that claim 1 is unpatentable over Smyth and Mozer.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 10,839,789 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,839,789 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00036 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 10, 12–14, 16–18, 20–23, 25–28, 35, 37–39, and 42–45 are unpatentable; claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 24, and 29 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with at least four years of experience in the field of speech recognition,” and that “[a]dditional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner contends that the Petition and supporting evidence, including the testimony of Mr. Schmandt, does not demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have been able to fabricate an integrated circuit. PO Resp. 1. Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not also be expected to have specialized knowledge in integrated circuit fabrication in Petitioner does not present arguments to the contrary. See generally Reply. We agree with Petitioner, that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition.3 Ex. 1001, 1:25–2:27 (describing in the “Background of Invention” section of the ’789 patent various speech recognition systems and methods). We also agree with Patent Owner, and rely on the supporting testimony of Dr. Anderson, in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the field of speech recognition would not have been a person of ordinary skill in the field of integrated circuit fabrication, and would not have had the education, experience, or skill necessary to fabricate an integrated circuit.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “applies the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms as understood by a POSITA for all terms.” Pet. 5. We conclude that no terms require express construction to resolve a dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (internal citation omitted)).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of evidence, that state memory 342 of Smyth is fabricated on the same integrated circuit as processor 341. Petitioner, in asserting that processor 341 and state memory 342 are on the same integrated circuit, cites the following testimony of Mr. Schmandt: In my opinion, the Motorola DSP56000 provides both memory and a processor fabricated on a single integrated circuit (IC). Kloker (Ex. 1009), 1 (discussing the Motorola DSP56000 includes “a core processor, RAM, ROM, peripheral interfaces, and a memory expansion interface on a single, 88-pin chip[”)]. . . . A POSITA would have understood or at least found obvious that Smyth thus teaches a single IC on which both classifier processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated. Ex. 1003 ¶ 165; Pet. 39. We do not credit Mr. Schmandt’s testimony because it is inconsistent with Smyth’s disclosure. Smyth discloses that classifier 34 comprises classifying processor 341 and state memory 342, and that “classifying processor 341 may be a suitably programmed digital signal processing (DSP) device.” Ex. 1005, 5:55–57, 6:5–6. Thus, Smyth itself, in discussing classifier 34, distinguishes processor 341 from state memory 342 in stating that only processor 341, and not both processor 341 and state memory 342, may be located on the DSP. describe processor 341 and state memory 342 as being fabricated on a single integrated circuit. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 34–37. Dr. Anderson persuasively explains that processor 341 and state memory 342 could not be fabricated on the same integrated circuit, because the design of the DSP for processor 341 does not include any memory that meets the requirements of state memory 342. Id. ¶¶ 38–45. We rely on the testimony of Dr. Anderson in finding that Petitioner has not shown that Smyth teaches that processor 341 and state memory 342 are fabricated on a single integrated circuit.” slip op. at 17
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision to Institute, we understood Petitioner’s theory based on the combination of Smyth and Mozer to include fabricating an integrated circuit in stating that we were sufficiently persuaded “that fabricating a single integrated circuit that includes a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory . . . was within the level of ordinary skill.” Dec. 23. Our understanding was based on the Petition’s multiple contentions that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to fabricate Smyth’s processor and state memory on a single integrated circuit. See Pet. 41–44. For example, the Petition contends that “[a] POSITA would have found it obvious . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 41–42 (emphasis added)); “a POSITA would have understood and found obvious . . . to fabricate a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 42 (emphasis added)); “[s]uch a use of a known technique of fabricating a memory and processor on a single integrated circuit” (id. (emphasis added)); “it would have been obvious to modify Smyth to form the classifier processor and associated memory on a single IC” (Pet. 43 (emphasis added)); (“it was well known in the prior art to fabricate a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 43–44 (emphasis added)); “[t]hus, a POSITA would have been motivated . . . to fabricate [Smyth’s processor and state memory] on a single integrated circuit” (Pet. 44 (emphasis added)). integrated circuit to using integrated circuits that were already fabricated. Reply 22–25. According to Petitioner, “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a POSITA modifying Smyth according to Mozer’s undisputed teachings of a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Id. at 23–24. However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, when discussing the combination of a processor and an acoustic model memory on an integrated circuit, the Petition used the verb “to fabricate” four times in the future tense and once in the present tense, as well as the verb “to form” once in the future tense. The Petition did not use the past tense phrase “were already fabricated” as alleged in the Reply. Moreover, the Petition did not map Smyth’s state memory (which the Petition contends teaches the claimed “acoustic model memory” (see Pet. 11)) to a memory already fabricated on an integrated circuit in the prior art. Rather, the Petition relied on Mozer to support its contention that a person of ordinary skill would have fabricated the calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory of Smyth on an integrated circuit. See Pet. 42, 44. The Petition cited Boike and Ozcelik in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with processors and memories was well known, and cited Toyoda in contending that fabricating an integrated circuit with a calculating apparatus and an acoustic model memory was well known. Pet. 43–44 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1034). However, the Petition did not explain how a memory located in one of the integrated circuits of Mozer, Boike, Ozcelik, or Toyoda would have been able to store Smyth’s state memory. Therefore, we disagree with Petitioner’s contention that “the Petition did not map a POSITA physically fabricating an IC, but rather mapped a single IC on which a calculating apparatus and acoustic model memory were already fabricated.” Reply 23–24. We find that this contention was untimely presented in the Reply. We do not permit Petitioner to propose a mapping of the prior art in the Petition and then completely change that mapping after Patent Owner argues the initial mapping was flawed. 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.” TPG 73; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. eWatch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 10,839,789 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,839,789 - Qualcomm Incorporated v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2023 · IPR2022-00586 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 and 26–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Lau and Benson; claim 28 also relies on Harring. Qualcomm did not show claims 16–25 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Exclude
“We do not rely on Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, or 1027 for any determinations or findings in this decision. See infra note 10 (noting the context in which Ex. 1014 has been cited). When we use the phrase “evidence of record” or other similar terms or phrases, we are referring to the evidence of record except that evidence that is the subject of FedEx’s Motion to Exclude, that is, Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, 1027, and 2049. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as to Exhibits 1010, 1014, 1026, and 1027 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Almeroth essentially agrees with Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill as expressed above. See Ex. 2200 ¶¶ 45–46. Because Qualcomm’s uncontroverted articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by testimonial evidence by both parties and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’231 patent, we adopt it for this decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:16–2:37 (“Field of the Disclosure” and “Background” sections of the ’231 patent, describing background knowledge about methods for tracking packages using wireless sensor devices). Qualcomm also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been familiar with the field of technology described [on pages 7–13 of 6 Qualcomm argues that this is “at least” the level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 7. As we did in our instituting decision, we disregard this qualification to avoid vagueness. Dec. 19 n.6; Dr. Almeroth agrees. Ex. 2200 ¶ 46. the Petition].” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41). The “Field of Technology” section of the Petition refers to background knowledge of RFID technology and hierarchical sensor networks. See Pet. 7–13. Because whether this subject matter is part of the background knowledge in the art is not determinative of our decision, we need not adopt this part of Qualcomm’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction needed
“Although the ’231 patent does appear to describe these as two separate embodiments, the embodiments both include smartphone 200. See Ex. 1001, 110:13–14, 19–20, 23–26. We find persuasive Qualcomm’s argument that the only apparent difference between the two embodiments is that in the second one, smartphone 200 has an app that allows it to use hardware capable of directly communicating with the server. In other words, the distinction is a matter of programming: the smartphone 200 is both “unable” and “not operable to” communicate with a server when it is not presently configured that way through software. This is inconsistent with Dr. Almeroth’s opinion that a device would not be “unable to directly communicate with the server” if it “ha[s] the circuitry components necessary to communicate with a server but simply lack the programming to do so presently.” Ex. 2200 ¶ 54. Thus, we do not find his testimony credible on this point. Regarding FedEx’s term-differentiation argument, we agree with Qualcomm that, based on the above evidence in the ’231 patent disclosure, there does not appear to be any meaningful difference between “unable to” and “not operative to” as those terms appear in the claims. Thus, we disagree with FedEx’s proposed construction of “unable to directly communicate with the server.” Our prior-art analysis below will be informed by the discussion above, but we need not explicitly construe this term to resolve the issues raised in the Petition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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
Patent outcomesUS 9,182,231 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,182,231 - Dr. Reddy’S Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., Hoffman-La Roche AG, And Abbvie Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 5, 2023 · PGR2022-00023 · APJ Robert A Pollock · PGR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 2, 3, 5, 14, 26, 27, and 30 unpatentable for lack of written description, but did not find claims 1, 6, and 25 unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We do not discern a substantive difference between the parties’ respective definitions for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Although Petitioner did not expressly recite hematological malignancies, Petitioner did refer to expertise in clinical oncology and cancer biology, which would encompass the blood cancers recited by Patent Owner. Accordingly, we find the parties’ respective definitions to be equivalent and consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the prior art in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). We find that Dr. Gordon and Dr. Sharman are both qualified to opine from the perspective of a skilled artisan as both are persons of at least ordinary skill in the art, based on either party’s definition. Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 8– 19; Ex. 2008, ¶¶ 11–24.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We find Dr. Sharman’s statements and deposition testimony have substantially greater credibility than Dr. Gordon’s statements and deposition testimony based on Dr. Sharman’s significantly greater relevant experience in treatment and study of hematological cancers using chemotherapeutic agents and based on Dr. Sharman’s superior recollection and more complete analysis of the record found in the ’942 patent. In particular, we found Dr. Gordon’s statement that no example “includes” every element of claim 1 factually incorrect as contradicted by at least Figure 2 of the ’942 patent where the ordinary understanding of includes to mean encompasses is used. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 131. Ebit Sys. Am., LLC v. Thales Visonix, Inc., 881 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The PTAB [i]s entitled to weigh the credibility of the witnesses ....”).” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not identify any issue relating to the preamble that needs to be addressed to resolve the sole written description challenge and the parties do not dispute that the transitional term “comprising” is “inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. US. Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1999). We therefore find that there are no terms that need claim construction. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description adequateWritten description inadequateMixed
“We find that Figure 2 of the ’942 patent and the associated example provide literal and express descriptive support for claim 1 of the ’942 patent. As descriptive support for claim 1, the ’942 patent teaches treatment of leukemia or lymphoma, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (Ex. 1001, 16:21–22), by orally administering the Bcl-2 inhibitor GDC-0199 (Ex. 1001, 17:16) in escalating doses of 50 mg per day during a first week and 100 mg per day during a second week (Ex. 1001, Figure 2). Claim 1 of the ’942 patent, as written, does not exclude performance of the complete combination therapy shown in Figure 2. Rather, the reasonable understanding of the term “comprising” in claim 1 encompasses monotherapy with GDC-0199 alone and combination therapy with obinutuzumab. Both embodiments are described in the Specification. As Patent Owner points out, the ’942 Specification is replete with disclosures to administer GDC-0199 by itself to a patient, stating” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 10,993,942 mixedClaim construction§ 112 disclosurePatents in suitUS 10,993,942
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.