• Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. v. Chiaro Technology Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01296 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–46 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “On balance, we determine that Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial of institution. In particular, we determine that factors 1 and 5 are neutral, factors 2 and 3 weigh against denial, and factor 4 is of institution, does not outweigh factors 1–3 and 5. As a result, we need not and, therefore, do not decide whether Petitioner presents a compelling unpatentability challenge. See CommScope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 at 4–5 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) (decision on Director review) (precedential) (“[I]n circumstances where the Board determines that the other Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor discretionary denial, the Board shall decline to discretionarily deny under Fintiv without reaching the compelling merits analysis.”). 7. Fintiv Determination The balance of all Fintiv factors do not favor the exercise of our discretionary powers to deny institution. Therefore, we determine that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case.” slip op. at 20

  • Parallel petitionsDenied

    “B. 35 U.S.C. § 314(A) – PARALLEL PETITION The Petition seeks inter partes review of the same claims of the ’380 patent that Petitioner previously requested review of in IPR2024-00953. Pet. 1. Patent Owner argues that the Petition should be discretionarily denied under § 314(a) for failure to show good cause for a second petition. Prelim. Resp. 67–73. The Board denied institution in IPR2024-00953, exercising discretion under § 314(a) based on the existence of the petition in this proceeding. IPR2024-00953, Paper 18. We thus decline to deny institution based on a parallel petition.” slip op. at 21

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “However, we find that Fang is not cumulative of the art considered by the Examiner in prosecution. Further, Patent Owner does not direct attention to, and we do not see, how or where the Examiner considered Khalil for teaching removing the air line for directly connecting the external pump to connecting a pump housing to a diaphragm housing” (POPR 50), the Examiner specifically found that Khalil did not teach the diaphragm housing being fixed to a recessed surface of the pump housing (Ex. 1002, 24), for which Petitioner relies on Fang (Pet. 37). And we note that Petitioner relies on Fang for the element the Examiner found was not taught by the prior art, including Khalil. Ex. 1002, 24; Pet. 37. Accordingly, we determine that discretionary denial is not warranted because the asserted combinations, all of which include Fang, were not previously presented to the Office. Because we determine that part one of the framework is not satisfied, we need not, and therefore do not, turn to part two of the analysis, which concerns whether Petitioner demonstrates that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims. 5. Conclusion Regarding Discretionary Denial under § 325(d) The Advanced Bionics framework “reflects a commitment to defer to previous Office evaluations of the evidence of record unless material error is shown.” Advanced Bionics, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 9. Under the present circumstances, we determine that the same or substantially the same prior art combinations or arguments were not previously presented to the Office. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 27

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, inter partes review of the ’380 patent shall proceed in this case on all of the grounds raised in the Petition. See SAS, 138 S. Ct. at 1359–60; PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” slip op. at 65

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,413,380
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 24, 2024 · IPR2023-00849 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 18, 20, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedOther

    “1. “safety device” For the ’745 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non-” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable

    “5. Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness a) Legal Standards Objective evidence of non-obviousness “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record” and “may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not.” Transocean, 699 F.3d at 1349. Thus, notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one skilled in the art, objective evidence of nonobviousness (or “secondary considerations”) may lead to a conclusion that the challenged claims would not have been obvious. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471–72 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Thus, our obviousness analysis includes consideration and weighing of Patent Owner’s indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 72

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

    “cited by Petitioner, we find that on this record, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 1, 4, 7–12, 14, 17, and 21–25 but has not demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence obviousness of claims 18 and 20 based on Socwell, Magid, and Sclater.” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 10,799,745 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,799,745
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00843 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30–34, 37–39, 41, 45–49, 57, and 59 are unpatentable under § 103 over Chickering, Magid, and Sclater; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We do not adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’884 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “2. “safety device” For the ’884 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 23. Both parties indicate that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” as “a device that includes the elements recited [in the claims] and restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms to reach our” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “We find Patent Owner’s arguments and the testimony of Dr. Blair to be unpersuasive, because we do not agree that the claimed running surface is required to be a surface with which a runner’s feet are intended to make contact when using a treadmill. Dr. Blair testifies that “[a] POSA would understand a treadmill’s ‘running surface’ to be a surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use” and that, because a runner’s feet is not intended to contact the belt at the area where the forward rollers meet the rearward rollers, that area is not part of the running surface. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 90–92. Dr. Blair’s testimony, however, contains no sufficient explanation to support his conclusion of what a POSA would understand by the term “running surface.” See id. ¶ 90. Further, Dr. Blair’s testimony is inconsistent with the language of claim 30. Claim 30 recites: “the running belt comprises a curved running surface.” Ex. 1001, 35:58–59. The language of claim 30 does not require the running belt’s running surface to only be portions that the runner typically or is intended to run upon. Dr. Blair’s testimony is also inconsistent with the ’884 patent which does not describe the running surface as being limited to the surface that a runner’s feet would typically make contact when the user is running on the treadmill during normal use. See generally id. The ’884 patent describes numerous examples of continuous running surfaces with a wide variety of” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 10,561,884 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,561,884
• Lifecore Fitness, LLC D/B/A Assault Fitness v. Woodway USA, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2023-00836 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, and 18 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 15 and 25 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “skill in the art because it is overly broad. During oral argument, Patent Owner clarified that its proposed level of ordinary skill includes a person with a mechanical engineering degree and no experience in the treadmill industry. See, e.g., Tr. 73:1–6. A POSA should have some knowledge related to treadmills as the ’580 patent and the prior art all relate to the field of treadmills. See generally Exs. 1001, 1009–1013; See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Both Petitioner and Patent Owner’s definitions encompass a person who has at least a degree in mechanical engineering degree. Pet. 5; PO Resp. 3–4. Petitioner’s definition additionally requires knowledge of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry, and Patent Owner’s additionally requires knowledge of design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills. Patent Owner argues that “any definition that requires a POSA to be a degreed engineer with ‘a demonstrated understanding of exercise biomechanics, including anthropometry’. . . — would necessarily exclude certain named inventions.” PO Sur-reply 2–3. We agree with Patent Owner that that experience and knowledge of treadmills is require, but the knowledge of exercise biomechanics is not. Ex. 2018 ¶ 70. Accordingly, we determine that a POSA would have a Bachelor’s of Science degree in mechanical engineering and at least one year of experience in the treadmill industry, including experience and knowledge of the design, construction, testing, and operation of manual treadmills overall.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “1. “substantially prevent” The District Court construed “substantially prevent” as “restricts rotation to allow for only one rotational direction of movement.” Ex. 1033, 16. In this proceeding, we need not construe this claim term as there is no related dispute. 2. “safety device” For the ’580 patent, the District Court construed “safety device” as a means-plus-function claim limitation with corresponding structure being “a operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever.” Ex. 1033, 17–22. Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that we should adopt the District Court’s construction. PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 2. We, thus, construe “safety device” to encompass “a one-way bearing assembly, a cam locking system, a taper lock, a user operated pin system, or a band brake system with a lever” and equivalents.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that either of Chickering or Magid teaches away from the combination proposed in the Petition — modifying Chickering’s single-belt embodiment to include Magid’s unidirectional control mean 6, 6’ (Pet. 41). Patent Owner points to differences between Chickering and Magid, but we are not persuaded that those differences – number of belts, use as a therapeutic device as opposed to a recreational exercise device, use of handles – would discourage a POSA from making the proposed combination. Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 57–59. slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,039,580 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,039,580
• Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00093 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–20 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that the asserted combinations rendered the claims obvious, including the required location information in a bet message.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA,” “PHOSITA,” or “skilled artisan”) “would be a person having a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’341 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’341 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 12–13.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The Parties construe certain claim language. Pet. 5–7; PO Resp. 14–18; Pet. Reply 1–5. In this proceeding, resolving the Parties’ patentability dispute does not require construing any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 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 15

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

    “Petitioner contends it would have been obvious to include McNutt’s location data “with” Garahi’s bet message, i.e., wagering data comprising the type and desired amount of wager. Pet. 30. However, Petitioner has not explained why a skilled artisan would modify Garahi’s bet message to include the location data of McNutt. Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would do so “to be able to discern the legality of a placed bet as McNutt discloses if a user of Garahi’s system moves to a wager-prohibitive location, e.g., the state of Oklahoma.” Pet. Reply 14 (citing Pet. 29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 154–156; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 111, 114). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves, inasmuch as Garahi already discloses obtaining” and using the location of the user to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 40; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to add location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Further, Petitioner has not shown a reason outside of hindsight. The ՚341 patent specifically provides that transmitting “information regarding the position or location of the first device or second device” is for “determin[ing] if the bet is allowed or disallowed using position or location information of the first device or the second device.” Ex. 1001 code (57); see also id. at 6:59–66, 16:22–31, 80:10–81:4, Fig. 20A (discussing process for determining whether the bet is allowed based on the user’s location). To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and McNutt teaches location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by claim 1. Thus, the preponderance of evidence does not show that the prior art would have made it obvious to have the bet message comprise the location information.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,043,341 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,043,341
• Entain Corporate Services Ltd. / Betmgm, LLC et al. v. Beteiro, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 6, 2024 · IPR2023-00092 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted obviousness combinations did not establish the claimed location information in a bet message or a sufficient reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering or equivalent, and at least two years of experience in the design and development of video game-related hardware and software.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–44). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. We find that the ’920 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’920 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the definition we adopted in our Decision to Institute. See Inst. Dec. 10–11.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We find no claim term requires express construction, because, for the reasons provided below, resolving the Parties’ patentability dispute in this case does not require construing any claim language. 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 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “information of the user telephone equipment to verify that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal,” but Petitioner acknowledges that “Garahi does not specify exactly how or when this verification [that the user is located in a geographic area where wagering is legal] occurs or whether the location information is transmitted to the TPSMS with the wagering data.” Id. at 40. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s suggestion that there is ambiguity as to whether Garahi may include position or location information in its “wagering data,” the evidence advanced by Petitioner is unequivocal on this point. When asked whether Garahi, alone, discloses a bet message that contains position or location information, Mr. Kitchen testified on behalf of Petitioner that “Garahi certainly doesn’t.” Ex. 2001, 140:19–141:8; see also Pet. Reply 18 (stating that Mr. Kitchen testified “only that ‘Garahi certainly doesn’t’ disclose the transmission of location information with a bet”) (citing Ex. 2001, 139:12–141:5); Ex. 2001, 124:3–7 (Mr. Kitchen confirming that Garahi does not disclose everything in “element 1(c)(iii)”). Petitioner, accordingly, relies on McNutt, in combination with Garahi, and asserts that “it would have been obvious” to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have configured “Garahi to include the user communication device’s location information in the wagering data (i.e., the bet message) as provides no persuasive evidence that McNutt teaches including “location information” in “wagering data” that corresponds to a “bet message.” To the contrary, Mr. Kitchen testified that “McNutt does not disclose a bet message,” and therefore, does not, alone, teach including location information in the wagering data as a part of a bet message. Instead, as Mr. Kitchen explains, Petitioner’s argument is premised on combining “location which is obtained by McNutt at the institution of the bet” with the wagering data transmitted by Garahi. See Ex. 2001, 136:8–24.” slip op. at 33

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

    “combination in regard to the bet message limitation, and we recognize that asserted prior art must not be considered in isolation, but for all that it teaches in the asserted combination, missing from Petitioner’s contentions is any persuasive evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include position or location information based on McNutt in the wagering data of Garahi that Petitioner contends corresponds to a “bet message.” There is no persuasive evidence that the mere fact that McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager” would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have taught or suggested including that location information with the wagering data of Garahi in a single “bet message,” as required by the Challenged Claims. To the contrary both Garahi and McNutt describe systems that first determine whether a bet may be placed from a location before allowing a user to transmit wagering data corresponding to “information regarding a bet to be place.” See, e.g., Ex. 1004 ¶ 50; Ex. 1006 ¶ 111, Fig. 12; Ex. 2001, 135:3–25, 137:11–22 (Mr. Kitchen testifying that in McNutt, the location information is obtained at the creation of the bet, i.e., when the user initiates the wager creation process, and allows or prevents access to the gambling apparatus). Petitioner contends that a skilled artisan would have done so to have been able to “discern the legality of a placed bet as McNutt discloses if a user of Garahi’s system moves to a wager-prohibitive location.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 173, 175, 176; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 111, persuasively identify any “deficiency in Garahi which McNutt purportedly solves, inasmuch as Garahi already discloses obtaining location information” and using that information to discern the legality of a placed bet at the user’s location. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 1004 ¶ 50. Petitioner has not provided any further benefit to be obtained by adding location information into Garahi’s bet message having wagering data. Petitioner has not shown a sufficient reason supported by a preponderance of the evidence to modify Garahi based on the teachings of McNutt, outside of hindsight based on the disclosures of the ’920 patent, which, itself, explains that a determination of whether a bet is allowed or disallowed is based on the position or location of the user communication device having been transmitted as part of a bet message with information regarding a bet to be placed. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 59:16–47, 94:53–95:5. In sum, we find that a preponderance of the evidence fails to show that Garahi and McNutt, in combination with Stadelmann, teaches or suggests including position or location information in a bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims. To the extent that Garahi teaches transmitting a message with wagering data, and McNutt teaches that location information may be obtained “when the user initiates the wager,” Petitioner has shown no persuasive reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to include the location information of McNutt with the wagering data of Garahi in a single bet message, as required by the Challenged Claims.” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 9,965,920 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,965,920
• Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Mar 15, 2024 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Rehearing

  Granted petitioner’s rehearing request and instituted IPR of claims 1–4 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the preliminary construction of “transaction data.”

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted

    “institute has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked and the place where each matter was previously addressed in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” Id. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 5

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Although the ’286 patent distinguishes “account data” from “transaction data” in the embodiment of Figure 11, the “transaction data” is submitted by the user to perform a series of banking transactions after manually entering a PIN code, whereas the “account data” is stored on the server, and the token information is accepted from the smart card’s embedded token, i.e., the output interface of the transaction card. See Ex. 1001, 10:12–18, 10:30–35, 10:40–42, 11:21–22, 11:65–12:4, 12:22–36. Thus, the claimed “transaction data” that is “accepted . . . from an output interface of a transaction card” and “accepted . . . from a transaction card at an input interface of the card reader,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 3, comprises data stored on and read from a card, such as an ID number, password, authentication information, or session information, that can be used to facilitate a transaction. Such claimed “transaction data” is distinct from the “transaction data” described in connection with the Figure 11 embodiment. We therefore do not limit the claimed “transaction data” and instead preliminarily construe that term as encompassing any data involved in a transaction, including account data. As described above, the claimed transaction data must come from the output interface of a transaction card. Should either party believe that a different construction should apply in the instituted trial, it should explain the proposed construction, how the construction is supported by the record, and how the construction affects our unpatentability analysis.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Entitled to earlier dateInstituted

    “The dispute relates to whether the ’030 application describes the claimed “smart telephone” accepting transaction data and executing coded instructions to convert the analog signal to digital data representing transaction data as digital data. See Pet. 14–15, 19–27. In Petitioner’s view, that term is supported only by language added to the “Brief Summary of the Invention” during prosecution of the application resulting in the ’286 patent. Id. at 17. In contrast, argues Petitioner, the corresponding section of the ’030 application instead describes transmitting sound to a PC, not a smart telephone. Id. at 19–26. Patent Owner submits that the ’030 application describes generating sounds from a smart phone and using a “key jack sound pass generator” to communicate sounds. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner contends that the claim language is supported by disclosure of receiving the audio signal at a microphone port and converting the signal to transaction data. Id. at 16–18. Patent Owner points also to description of direct communication between a “client device” and server. Id. at 19. On the present record, we find that Petitioner, at this stage in the proceeding, has shown sufficiently how it contends that the earliest possible effective filing date for claims 1–4 of the ’286 patent is March, 3, 2015, such that the Cho, Aaron, Carpenter, and de Geer references qualify as prior art. Patent Owner has identified a factual dispute regarding the significance of the ’030 application’s disclosures, and we view that dispute as best resolved through trial.” slip op. at 9

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner

    “35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) provides that one of the “Requirements of Petition” is that “the petition identifies all real parties in interest.” “Whether a non-party is a RPI is a ‘highly fact-dependent question’ and must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” SharkNinja Operating LLC. v. IROBOT Corp., No. IPR2020-00735, 2020 WL 6050687, at *4 (PTAB Oct. 13, 2020) (precedential) (citing Ventex Co. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (Paper 148) (precedential) (citing Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012))). Here, addressing whether TCH is an unnamed RPI would not create a time bar or estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. There is no allegation or evidence that TCH is “barred or estopped from this proceeding or that Petitioner purposefully omitted [TCH] to gain some advantage.” SharkNinja at *4. Rather, Patent Owner argues that for “once again willfully fail[ing] to identify TCH as a real party in interest, . . . the Petition should be denied on that basis.” Prelim. Resp. 7. In other words, Patent Owner contends only that we deny institution because of “the alleged failure of a procedural requirement that can be corrected under our precedent.” SharkNinja at *4. We understand that” slip op. at 11

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,286
• Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Services LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01340 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 were obvious over the asserted combinations of Bird Barrier Video and the cited references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “D. Principles of Law A petition must show how the construed claims are unpatentable under the statutory grounds it identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim for a petition to be granted. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). A claim is unpatentable under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations).9 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “problems encountered in the art, the prior art solutions to those problems, the rapidity with which innovations are made, the sophistication of the technology, and the educational level of active workers in the field. Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus. Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. U.S., 702 F.2d 1005, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that “a POSA6 ‘would have had at least either (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in the study of wildlife management or wildlife ecology or (ii) two or more years of field experience trapping flying animals,’” quoting the definition of a POSA adopted by the Board at the” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), namely that articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2021). In applying that standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] . . . the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316 (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Analysis Based on the current record, we agree with Patent Owner, that the Petition does not adequately explain why it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine the species of flying vertebrate (as required by limitation 1a) and position the netting for capture based on the species of flying vertebrate (as required by limitation 1d). All of the references relied upon assume the species of flying vertebrate. Specifically, Bird Barrier Video assumes that the flying vertebrate is a bird. See generally, Ex. 1003; see also Ex. 1004. Albanese and Sheldon (which specifically applies to American woodcocks) also assume that the flying vertebrate is a bird. See generally, Ex. 1010, see also Ex. 1011. Kunz assumes the flying vertebrate is a bat. See generally, Ex. 1009. Although, Kunz mentions birds, it does so in the context of setting its mist nets so as to not catch birds. Ex. 1009, 30. Thus, none of these references suggest that the method described therein pertains to a type of flying vertebrate other than the type of flying vertebrate described. In the absence of any explanation as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would need to determine the species of flying vertebrate, Petitioner’s assertion that a person of ordinary skill “would be motivated to combine [Kunz, Albanese, and Sheldon] with the teachings of Bird Barrier Video to increase the chances of capturing a targeted bird within a large building” lacks rationale underpinning. Pet. 27. We also determine that Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic connectors with hooks as required by limitation 1ci. Ex. 1001, 6:1. Petitioner contends that “using hooks instead of magnetic heads would have been obvious to a POSA as there is no material difference on the ends of poles to attach the poles to an overhead structure is commonly used in various fields. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1018, “Bebout”). Petitioner, however, does not explain how Bebout’s teachings would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify or replace Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic heads with hooks. See generally, Petition. Further, we do not agree with Petitioner’s assertion that there is no material difference between magnetic heads and hooks. For example, we understand that Bird Barrier Video’s magnetic head requires a magnetic surface, whereas hooks do not. Conversely, we understand hooks to require a structure that provides something for the hook to hook on to, whereas magnetic heads do not. Thus, it is not necessarily true that both a magnetic head and a hook have the same functionality such that a skilled artisan would find it obvious to replace one with the other.” slip op. at 24

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,943,073
• Safe Haven Wildlife Removal And Property Management Experts LLC v. Meridian Wildlife Services LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2023-01341 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3 were obvious over the asserted combinations of Bird Barrier Video and the other references.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “On the record before us, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness of claims 1–3 based on Bird Barrier Video and/or Kunz and/or Albanese and/or Sheldon. Because we deny institution on the merits, we do not address Patent Owner’s arguments that the proposed combination lacks particularity and that the Chamberlain Declaration is inadmissible. Prelim. Resp. 4–9, 29–33 (citing Ex. 2001; Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802; 37 C.F.R. § 42.62). IV. CONCLUSION Because we determine that the information presented in the record does not establish there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’663 patent, we do not institute an inter partes review” slip op. at 39

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Petitioner contends that “a POSA10 ‘would have had at least either (i) at least a bachelor’s degree in the study of wildlife management or wildlife ecology or (ii) two or more years of field experience trapping flying animals,’” quoting the definition of a POSA adopted by the Board at the institution stage in IPR2022-01253. Pet. 22 (quoting Ex. 1014, 9). Patent Owner does not challenge this definition of the level of skill at this time. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Sur-Reply. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner argues that (a) Petitioner fails to sufficiently identify how the challenged claims are to be construed, and (b) “[t]he amendments and arguments made during prosecution of the ’663 patent reveal that the phrase ‘configured to raise the entire bird netting’ in Claim 1 [limitation b.iii] must be construed to require the capability to raise the entire bird netting to prevent the netting from blocking activities on the floor of the building it is used in.” Prelim. Resp. 9–15 (citing Ex. 1002, 21). As explained below in Section III.E.3, we find that, for reasons not related to limitation b.iii of claim 1, Petitioner’s arguments and evidence do not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of establishing that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, we do not find it necessary to construe expressly any language of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 15

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “3. Analysis Even assuming, arguendo, that the Bird Barrier Video teaches at least independent claim 1’s device that is “for repeated quick set up for safe live capture of a flying vertebrate indoors in a large building having a floor and a ceiling supported by rafters or beams” and comprises “bird netting capable of catching and holding the flying vertebrate when it flies into the bird underpinning demonstrating how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Bird Barrier Video to, at least, have a plurality of poles for sitting on the floor and a hook positioned at a top of each pole configured to attach the poles overhead to the ceiling by attachment over the top of a ceiling rafter and beam, as recited in claim 1’s limitations b and b.i. Regarding limitation b, Petitioner acknowledges that Bird Barrier Video does not disclose or suggest that its poles are “for sitting on the floor.” Pet. 24. Petitioner contends “it would be obvious to place them on the floor if needed to capture a bird in a lower location.” Id. Yet, the claim requires that the poles are for “sitting on the floor,” and not simply “to place” on the floor. Petitioner does not explain, nor does Bird Barrier Video show, the structure of Bird Barrier Video’s poles such that they can be “for sitting on the floor.” Moreover, Petitioner’s reasoning presumes that the net disclosed in the Bird Barrier video, which is suspended from the ceiling, would be incapable of capturing low-flying birds, yet the record does not support such a finding.” slip op. at 33

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,154,663
• Askeladden, L.L.C. v. Ohva, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 4, 2023 · IPR2023-00921 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–4 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’286 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’286 patent is consistent with the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “To the extent necessary, we discuss the meaning of a claim term (“transaction data”) in our analysis below. We, however, need not construe explicitly any of the claim terms proposed by Petitioner to reach our decision about institution. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375 (“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))). At this stage, neither party has identified any indication that the ’286 patent uses any term differently than it would ordinarily be used or any indication in the prosecution history that “compel[s] a limitation of the claim language different from its plain meaning” as alternatives. Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 1311, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” slip op. at 17

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

    “To the extent Petitioner contends that Cho’s account information, though not explicitly providing for “transaction data,” “renders obvious” the claimed transaction data, Petitioner has not explained such a modification of Cho’s account information that would be necessary to arrive at the ’286 patent’s transaction data. Nor has Petitioner provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (C.A.Fed.2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S.at 418). Similarly, Petitioner does not explain how skilled artisans would have used Aaron to modify Cho’s system to meet the claimed transaction data. Rather, Petitioner relies on Aaron for teaching facilitating transactions. Pet. 57. Petitioner asserts that “Aaron explains what information is sent in transactions: ‘credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank accounts, user accounts, user identifying information or other sensitive information.’” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 69). Yet, Petitioner does not explain how Aaron’s customer facing device that communicates with the payment service system 708 to submit a request for authorization of a transaction, the information being credit and debit card numbers, bank and user account information, and other identifying or sensitive information, would have been combined with Cho to render obvious accepting, providing, and converting transaction data—differentiated from account data—and facilitating transactions using that transaction data. Indeed, Petitioner’s contentions do not mention Aaron for limitation [1.1.1] (the initial recitation of transaction data) or for limitation [1.3.1] (where an audio signal is converted to transaction data). Pet. 40–43, 53–56. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine” slip op. at 29

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,679,286

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.