- Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00155 · APJ James A Worth · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, or 19 were unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018).1 For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of claims 1, 3–9, 11–17, and 19 of the ’187 patent is unpatentable based on the grounds set forth in the Petition, and we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 29). Petitioner asserts that more work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Id. Patent Owner admittedly sets forth “a similar, though slightly different, level of ordinary skill”: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex.2001 ¶¶ 60–64). Patent Owner discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding. Id. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill as being consistent with the prior art, although our conclusion on whether to institute would be unchanged under either definition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“The failure to use the word “means” in a claim element creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc). The presumption can be overcome and § 112 ¶ 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term fails to “recite[ ] sufficiently definite structure” or else recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. “Construing a means-plus-function claim term is a two-step process.” Id. at 1351. “The [tribunal] must first identify the claimed function.” Id. “Then, the [tribunal] must determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.” Id. There may be multiple claimed functions, each with disclosed corresponding structure. See id. at 1351–52.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We are persuaded by Patent Owner that the term “automatically” in “to automatically disengage the first and second catch structures” means that it is not just the force applied by the user that disengages the first and second catch structures, but also the bias of the mouthpiece that helps to disengage the first and second catch structures. In the first instance, we agree with Patent Owner that the claim itself recites that, upon actuation, the mouthpiece assembly is “release[d]” to “move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Ex. 1001, 21:59–64. This meaning is supported by the Specification which states: “In some examples, the mouthpiece assembly is biased toward the dispensing configuration and thus moves automatically under its bias upon release by the user-release mechanism.” Ex. 1001, 1:64–67. We further agree with Patent Owner that the plain and ordinary meaning of “automatic” is that the user operation alone is not responsible for the action. For example, in one dictionary cited by Petitioner, “automatic” is defined as “2: having a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism.” See Ex. 2007, 1.11 The district court construction is consistent therewith. The district court identified two functions, the first of which is the same as that of the ’028 patent, i.e., “Automatically disengaging the first and second catch structures upon actuation of the user release mechanism and thereby releasing the mouthpiece assembly to move via its bias from the stowed configuration to the dispensing configuration.” See Section II.C.1, supra. In discussing that function, the district court states: “While a user may impart force upon user engagement portion 260 to release the mouthpiece, the bias of the mouthpiece towards the dispensing configuration causes the mouthpiece to move automatically, satisfying the requirements of Claim 1.” Ex. 2002, 16. We conclude that the term “automatically” in “adapted to” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,684,187 - Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00157 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of ResMed’s challenge to claims 1–3, 6, and 12–20 under General Plastic because the follow-on petition followed an earlier petition challenging the same claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“We find that in view of Petitioner’s prior petition, this factor favors discretionary denial. Code200 is distinguishable. There, the Board exercised its discretion to deny institution of the earlier petitions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on Fintiv. Code200, Paper 18, 2 n.3. Here, the Board did not discretionarily deny the previous petition, but rather denied it because Petitioner failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a threshold requirement for post-grant review, namely that the patent is eligible for postgrant review. See PGR Dec. 9–10, 24. In evaluating the eligibility issue, the Board thoroughly addressed the merits of Petitioner’s arguments that the ’284 patent claims lack adequate written description and enablement support in the priority applications such that the claims are not entitled to any of the pre-2013 priority dates listed on the face of the patent. See PGR Dec. 10–24. This issue extensively overlapped with Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on lack of written description and enablement in the post-grant petition, which Petitioner included together with prior art challenges. See PGR Dec. 6–7. As such, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, it did have “the opportunity to pursue a decision on the merits,” but failed to carry its burden to secure postgrant review. Prelim. Reply 1 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied
“institute review. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we exercise our discretion to deny institution of this follow-on petition because Petitioner previously filed a post-grant review petition challenging the same claims of the same patent.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenNot reached
“III. REMAINING ISSUES Because we deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and General Plastic, we need not reach the parties’ additional arguments regarding discretionary denial or the merits of Petitioner’s unpatentability challenges.” slip op. at 15
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,602,284 - Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01501 · APJ Linda E Horner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Trove did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, or 21 obvious over the asserted prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition and the preliminary response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Thus, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, and 21 of the ’028 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa.” Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–65). Patent Owner also states that it “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes the Board’s decision on whether to institute this proceeding.” Id. We agree that there appears to be no material difference in the parties’ definitions of the level of ordinary skill in the art. For the purposes of this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We determine that this definition is consistent with the prior art of record and the skill reflected in the Specification of the ’028 patent, based on our review of the limited record. Moreover, the prior art itself may be sufficient to demonstrate the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because “mechanism” is a nonce word for performing the claimed function without reciting structure for performing that function, and a POSITA would not have understood the term to have “a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for a structure that performs the claimed function.” Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 39). For claim 1, Petitioner identifies two distinct structures described in the ’028 patent that correspond to the claimed “user release mechanism” for performing the claimed functions. Id. at 34. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the ’028 patent describes a first embodiment in which the corresponding structure includes sliding member 238, and its component parts. Id. at 34– 35 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:50–13:25, 13:29–33). In the second embodiment, the corresponding structure includes user engagement portion 260 on rigid collar 170. Id. at 35–36 (citing Ex. 1001, 13:40–54). Petitioner does not separately address the structure corresponding to the “user release mechanism” as recited in claim 21. Id. at 53‒54 (relying on the same arguments presented for unpatentability of claim 1). court issued a claim construction order in the parallel litigation construing the term “user release mechanism” as a means-plus-function limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph. Prelim. Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2002, 12–15). The district court ruled that the corresponding structure for claim 1 includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts,” or “[u]ser engagement portion 260.” Ex. 2002, 15. For claim 21, the district court ruled that the corresponding structure includes “[s]liding member 238, including its component parts” or “[u]ser engagement pad 240, planar portion 242, tabs 244, collar engagement portion 254, depression 256.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner indicates that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding only,” it does not dispute that the claimed user release mechanisms are means-plusfunction limitations, and it does not dispute the corresponding structure identified by Petitioner, even though the district court did not specifically identify engagement portion 260 as corresponding structure for claim 21. Prelim. Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2002, 15–19). Although Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of the “user release mechanism,” because claim interpretation is a matter of law and the dispositive issue in this Decision turns on the interpretation of this claim limitation, we address it in this Decision. We agree with the parties that the “user release mechanism” elements recited in claims 1 and 21 are means-plus-function limitations governed by § 112, sixth paragraph. See 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”). “means,” it uses the nonce word “mechanism” without reciting structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. See Williamson v. CitrixOnline, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Generic terms such as ‘mechanism,’ ‘element,’ ‘device,’ and other nonce words that reflect nothing more than verbal constructs may be used in a claim in a manner that is tantamount to using the word “means” because they ‘typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure’ and therefore may invoke § 112, para. 6.”).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“[U]nder § 112, ¶ 6 equivalence, functional identity is required” and “[s]tructural equivalence under § 112, ¶ 6 is met only if the differences are insubstantial, that is, if the assertedly equivalent structure performs the claimed function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding structure described in the specification.” (citing Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Here, Petitioner states that Kiyota’s lock release buttons 40 “perform the claimed function in the same way to achieve the same result” as the ’028 patent’s sliding member 238, and its component parts (Pet. 37) without providing sufficient supporting explanation or evidence. Petitioner explains only that the two structures operate in “substantially the same way” by a user pressing an element that that slides towards the mouthpiece assembly to disengage the catch structures. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 89). The Petition does not discuss any of the differences between Kiyota’s structure and the ’028 patent’s structure or provide an explanation of why these differences are insubstantial. Indeed, as Patent Owner persuasively explains, there are notable differences in the “way” the two structures perform the claimed function and the “result” they achieve. See Prelim. Resp. 39–40 (discussing the ’028 patent’s one-finger operation and indirect catch disengagement, versus Kiyota’s two-finger operation and direct catch disengagement). Moreover, the analysis in Dr. Vallee’s declaration substantially parallels the discussion in the Petition and does not provide any additional explanation or evidence to show that the differences between the “way” the two structures operate or the “result” they achieve are insubstantial. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–91, with Pet. 34–38. For these reasons, Petitioner fails to show sufficiently that Kiyota discloses an equivalent structure to the structure described in the ’028 patent corresponding to the “user release mechanism” recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Kiyota. slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,782,028 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00067 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–23 because the cited art did not teach or suggest creating the claimed fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION After considering the evidence and arguments presented in the current record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’697 patent is unpatentable. We therefore do not institute trial on any challenged claims or grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We disagree with Petitioner’s arguments. Claim 1 recites “a decoy computer system [that] comprises . . . a virtual machine monitor,” and “at the virtual machine monitor: . . . creating, from the stored activities, a fingerprint.” Ex. 1001, 19:4–22. Thus, the claim’s plain language requires creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor, not just at the decoy system, as Petitioner asserts. When, as here, a claim term has “ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable,” we may not redraft those words to mean something different. Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Petitioner offers no explanation how one skilled in the art might read “at the virtual machine monitor” to mean at the decoy system, rather than at the virtual machine monitor. Although the claim’s plain language is decisive, we also disagree with Petitioner’s assertion that the ’697 patent’s specification because, as Patent Owner explains, the specification describes fingerprint generation inside and outside the virtual machine monitor. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Claim 1’s plain language, however, only covers the latter. Sur-reply 1–2; see id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:65–7:2, 10:13–22). Last, Petitioner’s characterization of Patent Owner’s infringement allegations in the related district-court proceedings, even if correct, do not undermine the claim’s plain language.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Given the deficiencies outlined above, Petitioner has not shown that the prior art teaches or suggests creating a fingerprint at the virtual machine monitor as the challenged claims require. Thus, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,106,697 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Apr 28, 2025 · IPR2024-01500 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
Institution of IPR challenging claims 1–5 was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that follow, we do not institute inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or an equivalent field, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures and protocols, and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). Petitioner further proposes that “[m]ore education can supplement practical experience and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). 6 Elgamal, U.S. Patent No. 6,898,248 B1, issued May 24, 2005 (Ex. 1008, “Elgamal”). 7 Frank et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0035469 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1006, “Frank”). 8 Zha et al., “Soft-Decision Successive Interference Cancellation CDMA Receiver with Amplitude Averaging and Robust to Timing Errors,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2001 (GLOBECOM ’01), vol. 2, 2001, pp. 743–747 (Ex. 1010, “Zha”). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’703 patent and 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).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“provide sufficiently persuasive evidence in support of its position that claim 1’s “decoders” has a meaning broad enough to correspond to Zha’s decision rule. Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s understanding of claim 1’s “decoders” by arguing that “[Patent Owner] does not argue that the specification disclaims decoders that do not perform error correction, or otherwise expressly limits the claimed bank of decoders to error correction.” Prelim. Reply 6. In support of its position, Petitioner cites Dr. Min’s testimony that “[i]n my opinion, a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that the ‘decision rule’ would be implemented using a decoder, as decoders typically make bit decisions.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 178; Pet. 59. Dr. Min does not cite any objective evidence in support of this view. Ex. 1003 ¶ 178. In response, Patent Owner marshals intrinsic evidence, along with Dr. Caire’s testimony based on objective supporting evidence. Prelim. Resp. 47–48; Prelim. Sur-Reply 5–6. For example, arguing that all embodiments disclosed in the ’703 patent use error-correcting coding, Patent Owner emphasizes the ’703 patent’s statement that “the [’703 patent’s] specification states that ‘[t]he invention is based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.’” Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (quoting Ex. 1001, 25:27–29 (emphasis added by Patent Owner)). Patent Owner also cites the Abstract of the ’703 patent, which states that “[t]he present invention provides Turbo-decoding for joint signal demodulation based on an iterative decoding solution that exploits error correction codes.” Ex. 1001, code (57); Prelim. Sur-Reply 6. Patent Owner also cites Dr. Caire’s testimony that “any reasonable understanding of a decoder is one that implements an error correction coding approach.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 98; Prelim. Resp. 47. Dr. Caire cite objective evidence that supports this view. Ex. 2001 ¶ 98 (citing Ex. 2003, 3; Ex. 2004, 11; Ex. 2005, 228). Weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Patent Owner’s more persuasive than Petitioner’s. Starting with the intrinsic evidence, Patent Owner’s citation of the ’703 patent’s repeated statements that the “invention . . . exploits error correction codes” is more persuasive than Petitioner’s argument that the ’703 patent does not disclaim other approaches. Prelim. Sur-Reply 6 (citing Ex. 1001, 25:27–29, code (57)); Prelim. Reply 6. Petitioner argues that certain background documents suggest decoders may have a broad meaning, but this attorney argument warrants less weight than Dr. Caire’s testimony. Prelim. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 2003, 18–20; Ex. 2004, 7, 9). Accordingly, in sum, Petitioner does not” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not reached
“In view of all the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing on this issue. When questioning who exactly had rights to which specific inventions of Mr. McElwain’s, Petitioner glosses over the key, undisputed fact that Mr. McElwain assigned the invention of the ’703 patent to the exact same entity to which Brommer was assigned, specifically BAESI. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2011, 2. Mr. McElwain did so shortly after BAE filed Mr. McElwain’s provisional application on April 14, 2003, which both parties treat as the ’703 patent’s date of invention. Ex. 2012, 2; Ex. 2013, 1; Prelim. Resp. 32; Prelim. Reply 1. This, in combination with Patent Owner’s evidence regarding Mr. McElwain’s EPIIA and BAE’s acquisition of Lockheed Martin’s Aerospace Electronics System Business, evinces that Mr. McElwain had an obligation on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI. Exs. 2014–2016. As Patent Owner notes, Petitioner does not advance a reason that Mr. McElwain would not have been obligated on April 14, 2003, to assign the invention of the ’703 patent to BAESI, much less provide evidence that he was not so obligated. See generally Prelim. Reply; Prelim. Sur-Reply 2. In sum, weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we do not find that Petitioner has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that Brommer is prior art to the ’703 patent for purposes of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not find that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its assertions that the claims of the ’703 patent would have been obvious over Brommer in combination with other references.” slip op. at 20
§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,463,703 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00748 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–6 and 9 obvious, including the domain-agent limitation.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Because Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not address sufficiently persuasively the challenged claims’ “domain agent associated with the determined context,” the record does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of Petitioner prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech- and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. See, generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the ’006 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Both parties express that we do not need to construe any claim language explicitly. Pet. 21; Prelim. Resp. 14. We agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Mr. Schmandt rests his opinion regarding the processing limitation on his testimony that “[a]s explained above, Coffman teaches that the conversationally-aware application associated with the determined context (‘the domain agent associated with the determined context’) is invoked to process the user’s request.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 139 (citing Ex. 1003, 37:2–4, 13:8–13, 58:9–11, 40:9–19, 30:4–10); see also Pet. 49–50 (same position citing same Coffman passages). This alleged teaching is not clearly in the cited passages of Coffman. And, although Mr. Schmandt represents that he “explained above”11 why he reads Coffman this way, he does not provide a cohesive, persuasive explanation of his reading of Coffman. Ex. 1002 ¶ 139. Instead, Mr. Schmandt’s testimony resorts significantly to conclusory statements without logical, persuasive support. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 125 (“making clear that an application is automatically selected and carries out a request as a result of processing by the conversational system.”). Petitioner does no better. See, e.g., Pet. 44.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,015,006 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00583 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all grounds because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“II. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standards Used in the Merits Analysis “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that, for the ’779 patent, one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an engineering degree and two or more years’ wellrelated operations experience, or equivalent education/experience.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not offer an alternative definition, but its Declarant, Mr. Hughett, submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a degree in petroleum or mining engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable discipline, and at least two years of experience in oil and gas extraction, or an equivalent combination of education and experience.” Ex. 2006 ¶ 17. On the record, we do not discern a meaningful difference between Petitioner’s and Mr. Hughett’s proposed definitions, and therefore adopt Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. We also presume that the cited prior-art references reflect the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“The Specification does not suggest a particular definition of threshold, and neither party suggests that it is a term of art in the relevant field. Therefore, we consult a general dictionary for guidance. See Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (If “the specification does not assign or suggest a particular definition [of a claim term], in determining the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word for guidance.”). Because Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, Merriam-Webster.com, provides several definitions for threshold, we refer to the intrinsic record “to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.” Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Based on the context in which threshold is used in claims 1 and 8, we consider the most relevant definition to be “a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.” Merriam- Webster.com/dictionary/threshold (accessed July 30, 2024). The claim context also indicates that threshold encompasses the opposite situation, i.e., the threshold may be a value below which something is true or will take place and above with it is not true or will not take place. Thus, a flow-rate value and time value are “thresholds” when there is an action that will or will not take place (or something is or is not true) depending on whether those values are met. The Specification identifies one particular action that occurs when these thresholds are met: performance of a CP swap from hydraulically fracturing the n1 well (i.e., a first well) to hydraulically fracturing the n1+1 well (i.e., a second well). Ex. 1001, 13:28–52, Figs. 1B, 12. To perform a CP swap, according to the Specification, zipper valves for the n1+1 well are opened while fluid is being pumped to the n1 well, allowing hydraulic fracturing fluid to flow to both wells, after which zipper valves for the n1 well are closed. Id. at 14:14–38, Figs. 15, 16A, 16B, 16C. This procedure is precisely what claims 1 and 8 recite. In addition to requiring “determining that the flow rate is below a flow-rate threshold . . . for a threshold amount of time,” claims 1 and 8 recite, e.g., “(c) during pumping of the fluid into the first well via the first valve, opening a second valve associated with a second well,” and “(e) during pumping of the fluid into the second well via the second valve, closing the first valve associated with the first well.” Ex. 1001, claims 1, 8. Thus, in the context of these claims, a flow-rate threshold and threshold amount of time would be flow-rate and time values that determine whether or not a second valve associated with a second well is opened during pumping of fluid into the first well via the first valve.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Ciezobka teaches or suggests limitation [1.3]. First, we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation necessarily requires comparing the measured flow rate to a threshold. Petitioner also appears to agree that such a comparison is necessary to perform limitation [1.3]. See Pet. 15 (“Ciezobka discloses determining the flowrate of the fluid and comparing the determined flowrate to certain thresholds . . . , and therefore discloses determining that the flow rate of the fluid being pumped into the first well is below a flowrate threshold.”) (emphasis added). Ciezobka does not, however, teach such a comparison. Assuming that the initial flow rate can be considered a “threshold,” Ciezobka’s teaching of the existence of an initial flow rate followed by the existence of a lower pulse flow rate does not constitute a teaching of a comparison of the two flow rates. Second, Petitioner has not established that the “initial flow rate” is a “threshold.” As discussed above, we construe “flow rate threshold” in the context of claim 1 to mean a flow rate value that an actual flow rate must drop below for a threshold amount of time in order for a second valve associated with a second well to be opened. See Section II.C. Ciezobka does not teach that a measured flow rate must drop below the initial flow rate or any other specific flowrate before one of valves 218 or 219 is opened. Instead, the valve is opened after a specific period of time and without comparing the actual flow rate to the initial flow rate. See Ex. 1037, 12:8– 12 (teaching that a pressure pulse is created by closing valve 219 “for a short period of time” ranging from 1 minute to 1 second, preferably 10 seconds). Indeed, opening valve 218/219 causes flow rate drop to one of the wells; it does not occur as a result of the flow-rate drop.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,401,779 - Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Identitii LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00593 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We determine that the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–2 and 4–20 are unpatentable over Kennedy and Kurani-816. 2. Ground 2 — Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago Claim 3 depends from claim 1. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 would have been obvious over Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. We are not persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to a POSITA, based on the disclosures of Kennedy and Kurani-816, to store a digital title in memory 228 of processing server 102 for the purpose of record keeping. See Ex. 2013 ¶ 91. Kennedy discloses that processing server 102 includes a memory 228 for storing data used to perform its function, such as encryption keys, algorithms, and application programs. Ex. 1033 ¶ 46. Kennedy does not disclose memory 228 being a document store for record keeping of transaction messages or other transaction data. See id. In Kennedy, a private blockchain 206 stores data record 208 containing the transaction data. See e.g., id. ¶¶ 48–51; Fig. 2. Kurani-816 discloses digital titles that are specific to an asset and not to a particular financial transaction. Ex. 1034, 3:13–15. The digital titles are stored in a database at a digital title company and provided to the seller or buyer during a transaction. See e.g., id. at 6:34–9:7. Kurani-816 does not disclose transmitting the digital title to a financial transaction processing server, like processing server 102. Id. Thus, neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 teaches transmitting documents pertaining to a financial transaction and a token corresponding to a financial transaction to identify the document to a first document store, as required by claim elements 1 and 6. For the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 would have been obvious to a POSITA over Kennedy and Kurani-816.” slip op. at 19
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“Because we have denied institution in IPR2024-00590 and deny institution in this proceeding based on the patentability merits, we do not need to reach the issue of whether both Petitions should be instituted.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“patent applications, including one filed on August 14, 2015. Ex. 1001, code (30). Petitioner asserts that the ’413 patent is not entitled to priority to August 14, 2015 because the provisional applications do not provide written description support for certain claim terms. Pet. 6–15. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 20, n.7. As both Kennedy and Kurani-816 were filed after August 14, 2015 (see Ex. 1033, code (22); Ex. 1034, code (22)), if the ’413 patent is entitled to priority to August 14, 2015, then neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 is available as prior art. We do not need to reach this issue because, regardless of whether Kennedy and Kurani-816 are available as prior art, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Kennedy and Kurani-816 as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,984,413 - Delta Power Equipment Corporation / Lowe’S Home Centers, LLC et al. v. P & F Brother Industrial CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00347 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Gass, alone or in the asserted combinations, teaches claim 1’s required bias toward the supporting frame.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“shank of bolt 452 towards riving knife 400. Gass teaches that spring 456 applies force to clamping plate 442 to push it away from positioning plate 422. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 20:60–62 (“Spring 456 biases clamping plate 442 away from positioning plate 422 to help open the clamp . . .”).9 Clamping plate 442 transfers this force to the front end of bolt 452 via the bolt head and cam bushing 470. See id. at 22:11–13, Fig. 53. Because positioning 9 The spring does not apply force to riving knife 400 because the base of the riving knife includes cut-out 502 to allow clearance for bolt 452 and spring 456 when the riving knife is inserted into mounting system 410. Ex. 1003, 22:29–31, Fig. 49. Thus, the spring does not bias the riving knife toward the front end of bolt 452. plate 442 holds riving knife 400 in the mounting system (id. at 20:25–38), pushing clamping plate 442 away from positioning plate 422 effectively biases front end of bolt 452 away from riving knife 400, which is the opposite of what claim 1 requires. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant explain how Gass teaches limitation [1.13] in light of the above teachings. AAPA is relied on to teach a different limitation (Pet. 21–22) and therefore does not cure this deficiency.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“shank of bolt 452 towards riving knife 400. Gass teaches that spring 456 applies force to clamping plate 442 to push it away from positioning plate 422. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 20:60–62 (“Spring 456 biases clamping plate 442 away from positioning plate 422 to help open the clamp . . .”).9 Clamping plate 442 transfers this force to the front end of bolt 452 via the bolt head and cam bushing 470. See id. at 22:11–13, Fig. 53. Because positioning 9 The spring does not apply force to riving knife 400 because the base of the riving knife includes cut-out 502 to allow clearance for bolt 452 and spring 456 when the riving knife is inserted into mounting system 410. Ex. 1003, 22:29–31, Fig. 49. Thus, the spring does not bias the riving knife toward the front end of bolt 452. plate 442 holds riving knife 400 in the mounting system (id. at 20:25–38), pushing clamping plate 442 away from positioning plate 422 effectively biases front end of bolt 452 away from riving knife 400, which is the opposite of what claim 1 requires. Neither Petitioner nor Petitioner’s declarant explain how Gass teaches limitation [1.13] in light of the above teachings. AAPA is relied on to teach a different limitation (Pet. 21–22) and therefore does not cure this deficiency.” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“F. Patent Owner’s Request for Discretionary Denial of Institution Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Patent Owner requests that we deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because of the related district-court actions listed above. Prelim. Resp. 22–26 (citing Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)). Because we have determined not to institute inter partes review on the merits, Patent Owner’s request is moot.” slip op. at 19
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,475,622 - Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. v. Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 5, 2024 · IPR2024-00256 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing: Krupa was not established as prior art, and the other grounds failed to show key claim limitations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon considering the Petition, we determine that Petitioner has not satisfied this threshold requirement, and therefore we do not institute inter partes review of claims 1–3, 6, 8–10, 13, 15–18, 25–28, 31, and 36 of the ’779 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“Here, however, Krupa’s actual filing date is after the ’779 patent’s filing date. Compare Ex. 1003, code (22) (Krupa filed Feb. 18, 2022) with Ex. 1001, code (22) (’779 patent filed Jul. 29, 2021). Petitioner therefore must seek the benefit of the earlier February 25, 2021 filing date of the Krupa Provisional. 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)(2). Pet. 6. Under subsection 102(d)(2), to qualify as prior art, a reference patent or published patent application is considered effectively filed as of the filing date of its provisional application only to the extent that the provisional “describes the subject matter” relied on in the reference patent document. We cannot presume that the Krupa Provisional describes the subject matter in Krupa that the Petition relies on, however. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1380 (“[B]ecause the PTO does not examine priority claims unless necessary, the Board has no basis to presume that a reference patent is necessarily entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.”). The burden to make this showing thus falls squarely on Petitioner. But Petitioner does not explain how the Krupa Provisional supports the relevant subject matter relied on in Krupa. In fact, Petitioner did not introduce the Krupa Provisional into the record, so it would not be possible to do so.7 Accordingly, Petitioner has not adequately shown that Krupa is prior art, and therefore Petitioner does not have a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the claims challenged in Grounds 1, 2, and 4, which grounds rely on Krupa in whole or substantial part.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We are not persuaded that Kajaria teaches limitation [1.5] or limitation [8.7]. First, Kajaria does not expressly teach these limitations, and, indeed, Petitioner does not appear to contend as much. Instead, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood paragraph 35 of Kajaria as “includ[ing]” this step. But paragraph 35 teaches that “it may be desirable to provide pressurized fluid to a particular well at a particular time or place in the frac cycle, while simultaneously stopping the flow of fluid into another well that is in a different place in the frac cycle.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Providing pressurized fluid to one well which simultaneously stopping flow to another well suggests that fluid flow is not being provided to both wells at the same time. Second, “direct[ing] flow between wells continuously” is not the same as pumping flow to wells continuously, as Petitioner’s argument suggests. Paragraph 35 of Kajaria states that it is possible to direct flow between wells continuously “simply by opening or closing the valves 66 associated with individual wells,” and is silent regarding whether the frac pumps are on. This suggests that “direct[ing] flow between wells continuously” only refers to the valve lineup—i.e., at least one valve 66 is open “continuously’’—and does not mean providing fluid flow continuously. Interpreting the “continuously” statement in paragraph 35 in this manner is consistent with our interpretation of the “simultaneously stopping” sentence in the same paragraph, discussed above.” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, we do not perceive the need to expressly construe any claim terms, as the threshold question of institution can be decided without doing so. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (approving Board decision not to construe claim language where construction is not material to the dispute). See Pet. 14; see also Prelim. Resp. 40.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,401,779
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.