- PTAB · Aug 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00574 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–7 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on claim 1 over Choe and Workman.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we preliminarily agree that the combination of Choe and Workman teaches the subject matter of limitation [1B] sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelOther
“would have had a Bachelor’s in Computer Science with a focus on computer/machine vision, and at least two years of experience with each of: (1) machine learning (including neural network) methods as applied to machine/computer vision and (2) classical machine/computer vision algorithms (e.g., edge detection, line identification, computation of camera parameters from horizon line, etc.)” and that additional education “could serve as a substitute for the experience requirement.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 77). Patent Owner disagrees with Petitioner’s definition and asserts that a POSITA “would have a bachelor’s degree in engineering or computer science with one- or two-years training and/or experience in design of software for camera/sensor systems in the automotive industry.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2003 (Declaration of Scott Andrews) ¶ 35). We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should the parties continue to disagree regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art during trial, we encourage the parties to explain how an automotive-focused definition, or the lack thereof, would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision. B. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyOther
“For purposes of institution, we find sufficient Dr. Darrell’s testimony that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Choe and Workman because Workman discloses predictive models to identify the horizon line (Ex. 1003 ¶ 146), and additionally, because using Workman’s model to identify the horizon line would have been combining known elements (CNNs and annotation for camera calibration) according to known methods to yield predictable results and used known techniques (CNNs) to improve similar devices in the same way. Pet. 48 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We find sufficient for institution Dr. Darrell’s testimony that because these models were well known, a person of skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Choe and Workman to achieve the method of claim 1. Id. at 49 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 150). We have reviewed Mr. Andrews’s testimony to the contrary (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 71–80) but, at this stage, do not find it persuasive. For example, to the extent Patent Owner and Mr. Andrews assert that Choe does not identify any “shortcomings” that would motivate a POSITA to look for a better approach like that of Workman (see Prelim. Resp. 29; Ex. 2003 ¶ 74), we note that it is “not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it be a suitable option,’” and “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill,” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 11
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,875,580 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. Under the second Fintiv factor, the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution because there is no trial date scheduled. Id. at 9; see Ex. 1031, 3. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). For the reasons that follow, we grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition (see Prelim. Resp. 13–14), but states that a POSITA “would understand that . . . the subject of the patent is a software-based solution to broadcasting multimedia streams, and the skillset and expertise in hardware-based systems would not make one knowledgeable about software-based systems.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Claim 1 does not limit the “caching unit” in any way. With this in mind, we preliminarily agree that Farber discloses the subject matter of limitation 1a sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution. b.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,140,441 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00350 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13 for all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“After Patent Owner made these arguments, though, the district court in the Florida Litigation (1) stayed all deadlines indefinitely and (2) said that the October trial will not go forward as scheduled. Ex. 1028, 3. “A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 14
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, Here, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. . . . A person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could also meet the standard. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 68–69). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions in the ‘002 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. at 12–13 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 60). At this stage, our decision would be the same under either definition. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“There is no dispute that (1) Avellan’s user initiates the request and eventually receives the stream and (2) gateway server 134 receives a request for a media stream for playback on a broadcast channel. See id. at 32–39; Pet. 22. The issue here is whether claim 1 requires that the recited “content provider” originates the request. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 does not require this. Prelim. Reply 7. Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:51–54. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:50), which is a encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n. Pet. 22. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 22. ii. Remaining Limitations Apart from the arguments discussed above, Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the other limitations of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. We determine that Petitioner’s arguments made in connection with those limitations are sufficient at this stage and on this record. Pet. 24–32. We agree with Petitioner that Avellan teaches obtaining content from the networks 150 and 152, as recited in 1b; rendering a webpage by a browser at gateway 134, as recited in 1c; generating the screen captures at gateway 134, as recited in 1d; and assembling and providing the media stream when gateway server 134 compresses the image or video format and sends it to the browser 106, as recited in 1e and 1f. Id. at 24–29. Petitioner has provided a sufficient rationale at this stage why a method with the subject matter recited in lg and 1h would have been obvious. Id. at 29– 32. Conclusion At this stage and on this record, it is reasonably likely that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over Avellan. The Petition’s merits are compelling because Petitioner’s challenge plainly leads to a conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 12
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,524,002 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 and all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Avellan anticipates claim 1.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. slip op. at 6
- Skill levelOther
“B. Merits 1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art According to the Petition, A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) at the time of the claimed invention would have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols. Furthermore, a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 68). Patent Owner provides a different definition: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed inventions in the ‘074 Patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a related field, and at least two years of experience working in the field of software systems used in generating and broadcasting multimedia streams. An individual with less technical education but more experience, or vice versa, could also qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art Prelim. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 58) (emphasis added). Patent Owner argues that the definition must include experience in software systems because the invention is a software-based solution. Id. (citing Ex. 2006 ¶ 59). Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Apart from being received from the content provider, claim 1 does not limit the request’s origin in any way. Rather, claim 1 only requires that the request is received from the content provider. Ex. 1001, 14:48–50. Claim 1 recites “comprising” in the preamble of the method (id. at 14:47), which is a term that does not exclude additional, unrecited steps. Thus, claim 1 encompasses user-originated requests that are received from other entities. With this understanding of the claim, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a through its communication path from network 150 to user computers 1041–104n via gateway platforms 1301–130n and broadcast device 102. Pet. 17–18. That is, Avellan’s gateway platform 134 receives a request from broadcast device 102 for at least one media stream, and claim 1 does not exclude user-originated requests. See id. We agree that the content can be video from CNN, BBC, ESPN, or other live-streaming television feeds. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003, 8:18–21). Thus, at this stage and on this record, we agree with Petitioner that Avellan discloses limitation 1a. See id. at 17–19.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,123,074 - Coxcom, LLC v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 15, 2017 · IPR2015-01762 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 8, 13–17, 20, and 84–86 are unpatentable as obvious over Koether and Crater; claim 44 was not shown unpatentable on that ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner
“owner must provide sufficient rebuttal evidence to bring reasonably into question the accuracy of Petitioner’s identification of RPIs.” See Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,680, 48,695 (Aug. 14, 2012). Whether a non-party is a real party in interest is a “highly fact-dependent question” that is addressed on a “case-by-case” basis. See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759. “A common focus of the inquiry is . . . whether the non-party exercised or could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” Id. The concept of control means that “the non-party ‘had the opportunity to present proofs and argument’ . . . or ‘to direct or control the content’ of the filing.” JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al. v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Case CBM2014-00179, slip op. at 10 (PTAB Feb. 20, 2015) (Paper 11) (“JP Morgan”). “‘The evidence as a whole must show that the non-party possessed effective control over a party’s conduct of the [proceeding] as measured from a practical, as opposed to a purely theoretical standpoint.’” Id. (quoting Gonzalez v. Banco Cent Corp., 27 F.3d 751, 759 (1st Cir. 1994)).” slip op. at 5
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1001, Abst. It describes the relevant problems encountered in the art as those involved in the control, monitoring, or security of vehicles or premises, in a network environment. Id. at 1:20–52; 3:12–21. The ’363 patent is not directed to specific issues associated with electrical circuits or electrical connections between devices. The Specification identifies no specific problem that stems from the apparatus being a particular type of electrical device. From this evidence, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art with respect to the ’363 patent would be skilled in the field of networked systems. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the level of ordinary skill in the art requires specific coursework or education in the form of a degree in electrical engineering. Instead, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, and our finding of the level of ordinary skill is similar to that proposed by Petitioner, but with a slight modification, i.e., that a basic level of experience is required, at the level of at least two years of experience in networked systems. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art is that of one having at least two years of working experience with networked systems. A more advanced degree would be paired with a shorter period of working experience.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner has not articulated a persuasive reason for giving Mr. Bennett’s testimony little or no weight. Moreover, as discussed above, we are not persuaded that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’363 patent would be required to have a specific degree or coursework in electrical engineering. We are, thus, not persuaded that Mr. Bennett’s answers, during deposition, to questions about his background are wrong or that the entirety of his testimony should be given little or no weight based on this testimony.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the terms “remote,” “premises,” and “located at.” Dec. 8–9. We reviewed and adopted Patent Owner’s explicit definitions for these terms, which Patent Owner provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. Dec. 8 (citing Ex. 2002). Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our constructions for these claim terms. For convenience, these claim constructions are reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Remote Ex. 2002, “‘Remote’ means ‘separate and apart from, or 10–11 external from, or at a distance from or distant from, or not located in.’” Premises Ex. 2002, 8– “‘Premises’ means ‘a building or a structure 9 and the grounds or parcel of land associated with the building or the structure, or a building or structure or a portion, room, or office, of or in the building or structure, or a home, mobile home, mobile building, mobile structure, residence, residential building, office, commercial building, commercial office, structure, equipment, facility, machine, rig, assembly line, or edifice.’” Located at Ex. 2002, 8 “‘Located at’ means ‘situated at, or situated in, or situated on.’”” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,397,363 - Nissan North America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 25, 2017 · IPR2015-01508 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 20, 65, 73, 93, 103, 104, 108, and 205 are unpatentable: claims 3, 20, 73, 103, and 205 are anticipated by Frossard; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the stated obviousness or anticipation …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“For purposes of the Decision to Institute, we construed the term “control device.” Dec. 10–11. Neither party raised any concerns regarding this construction during trial. See PO Resp. 10–11; Reply 1. Based on our review of the full record, we discern no reason to modify or further discuss in this Final Written Decision our construction for this claim term. For convenience, the claim construction is reproduced in the table below. Term Citations Construction Control Ex. 2002, 6 A device or a computer, or that part of a device or Device a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for petitioner
“In that 2007 filing, the term “signal” was defined as “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Ex. 2002, 11. We are persuaded that this definition is instructive to understanding the proper scope of these claim terms. Thus, a first signal, for example, is an “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information that is sent by a first device.” 7 This information was modified by a Certificate of Correction issued July 1, 2003. See Ex. 1001, 95. We have not been directed to evidence in the specification sufficient to show that the Applicant desired to narrow this very broad definition of signal in a manner that would exclude signals that pass through intermediaries. As defined by the Applicant, a signal may be an indication, information, or a message and we are not persuaded that it is impermissible for an intermediary to pass this information on and to add further data to the information that it received. For the foregoing reasons, we construe the term “first signal” to be “a signal sent by a first device;” “second signal” to be “a signal sent by a second device;” and “third signal” to be “a signal sent by a third device.” The recited signals all are construed to be “an indication, or an indication having or conveying data, information, or a message, or a conveyor of data, information, or a message, or an indication representing data or information.” Finally, we are not persuaded that these terms exclude signals that may pass through an intermediary.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that Mr. McNamara’s statements on cross examination are sufficient to accord his testimony little or no weight. The prosecution history is an important element in understanding the claims of a patent. We, however, are persuaded that the statements made during cross examination appear to be misstatements as to Mr. McNamara’s review of the patent and its underlying prosecution history. Mr. McNamara signed his declaration under penalty of perjury and he has made other statements consistent with his testimony under oath stating that he reviewed the prosecution history. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 14; Ex. 2005, 154:11–20. In addition, we have reviewed the relevant prosecution history and we are in the position to evaluate whether Mr. McNamara’s testimony is at odds with the evidence in this case, which include the relevant prosecution history. Accordingly, we are not persuaded Mr. McNamara’s testimony should be accorded little or no weight due to the statements he made during cross-examination regarding his review of the prosecution history.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner is correct in arguing that Patent Owner improperly attempts to limit “control device” in a way that contradicts the construction of the term. We agree with Petitioner that Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 may disclose the claimed “second control device” because by definition a “control device” can comprise “part of a device”; therefore, it follows that if something may be “part of a device” then it is permissible for that device to have multiple parts. Thus, a “control device,” which necessarily is a type of device, can include multiple parts. Therefore, the question is whether the cited elements of Frossard (server center 1 and resource 2) reasonably can be interpreted to be the parts of the second control device. To that end, Petitioner compares the combination of Frossard’s server center 1 and resource 2 with the ’076 patent’s combination of server 952 and transmitter 957. Id. at 9. It is Petitioner’s contention that “Frossard’s server 1 corresponds to server 952 of the ’076 patent because both generate a signal for remote control. Frossard’s resource 2 corresponds to transmitter 957 of the ’076 patent because both transmit the signal.” Id. at 12. According to Petitioner, “[t]he specification describes that, in response to a command received by the server receiver 953, the server 952 sends a control signal via the transmitter 957.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 58:41–48, 5:55–58). Further, Petitioner asserts that “[a]ll of the described second devices use transmitters (e.g., server 952 uses transmitter 957 in Fig. 11B).” Id. at 10. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, Patent Owner’s argument that the control device may not be the combination of a server and transmitter is not supported by the specification. Id. We agree and find that Frossard discloses the claimed second control device.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 6,542,076 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 6,542,076 - Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. v. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2017 · IPR2015-01612 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 are unpatentable as anticipated by Spaur; claim 72 is unpatentable as obvious over Spaur.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Monitoring Systems, LLC, filed a Preliminary Response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Based on our review of these submissions, we declined to institute review of claims 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 33, and we instituted inter partes review of claims 68, 69, 72, 74, 77, and 80. Paper 7 (“Dec.”). Specifically, we authorized this inter partes review to proceed as to the following grounds: (1) claims 68, 69, 74, 77, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Spaur1; and (2) claim 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Spaur.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“processing device” Patent Owner argues that “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” PO Resp. 8. Patent Owner argues that this definition comes from the prosecution history of the ’363 patent (Ex. 1007) and is consistent with the Specification. Id. Petitioner does not dispute this construction. See Reply 2–4. We agree that this explicit definition for “processing device” was provided in the prosecution of the application that issued as the ’363 patent. See Ex. 1007. We have reviewed the definition and we find it to be instructive to understanding the proper scope of “processing device.” See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, we adopt the Patent Owner’s construction of “processing device” to mean “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions” for the purposes of this decision. slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner’s characterization of Spaur’s teachings and we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Patent Owner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that the “second processing device” of claim 68 is not encompassed by Spaur’s teaching of a CDPD network modem. Pursuant to our construction discussed above, the term “processing device” means “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.” See § II.A. This is the definition Patent Owner proposed and that Patent Owner provided during prosecution. We are unpersuaded as to why Spaur’s CDPD network modem 76 is necessarily different from “a device or a computer, or that part of a device or a computer, which performs an operation, an action, or a function, or which performs a number of operations, actions, or functions.”” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“not address the arguments in the Petition about the obviousness of claim 72. Reply 13. In particular, the Petition stated that: (1) Spaur describes a “wireless device” contained in the vehicle for transmitting and receiving information over an air link (Ex. 1004, 6:3–5), (2) Spaur describes that such devices may be among vehicle devices 50 (id. at 10:1–9), and (3) using a wireless device, a cellular telephone, or a personal digital assistant as the communication device in the system described by Spaur would have been within the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the alleged invention of claim 72 was made, and it would have been obvious to do so because it would allow the user to operate the system from a mobile device. Pet. 59–60 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner does not dispute the first two statements. Rather, we interpret Patent Owner’s arguments as directed to the third statement. Petitioner argues that Mr. Andrews testified in his declaration that wireless devices, cellular telephones, and personal digital assistants were well-known as of the filing of the ’363 patent, and that the use of a mobile device in Spaur’s system would have been obvious. Id. (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 40). During his cross examination, Mr. Andrews testified that people “could certainly contact using a cellular telephone contact, an Internet gateway, and obtain information from devices on the Internet via an Internet gateway.” Ex. 2004, 45:16–19. Thus, Petitioner argues, Patent Owner has no basis for its statement that Mr. Andrews could not support this position during cross-examination. We agree with Petitioner and are not persuaded that Mr. Andrews’s testimony is unsupported based on his statements during cross examination.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 7,397,363 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 7,397,363 - Avx Corporation v. Greatbatch LtdAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2015 · IPR2014-01361 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–43 are unpatentable under § 103; proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are not shown patentable, and the Second Motion to Amend is denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In our Decision on Institution, we discussed the meaning of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” but otherwise found that no claim terms required express construction. Dec. on Inst. 4. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not dispute our interpretation of “consisting essentially of,” or propose constructions for any additional claim terms. Upon review of Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments, we conclude that no explicit constructions are required in order to resolve the issues pending before the Board.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“establishing that it is entitled to add proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). As part of this showing, Patent Owner must demonstrate (1) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (2) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter; (3) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; and (4) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121. Upon review of the Second Motion to Amend, we are persuaded that the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 have been met. For example, Patent Owner seeks to add only two substitute claims, each of which serves to narrow the scope of original claim 18. Mot. 17–18. Patent Owner also identifies exemplary electrolytes disclosed in the originally-filed application that fall within the scope of proposed substitute claims 44 and 45. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1010, 33, 35–36 (disclosing an electrolyte containing ethylene glycol, water, isobutyric acid, and ammonium hydroxide (which results in an ammonium salt of the organic acid) with a pH of 4.9, a conductivity of 7.1 mS/cm, and an anode breakdown voltage of 395 volts)). Thus, we focus on whether Patent Owner has met its burden of proof to show that proposed substitute claims 44 and 45 are patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundNot shown unpatentable
“Clark, however, discloses successfully substituting acetic acid in an electrolyte solution with “other low molecular weight paraffin acids,” including butyric, propionic, and lactic acids, as well as forming corresponding ammonium salts of these organic acids. Ex. 1003, 2:40–46, 3:46–61. Likewise, GB 466,193 broadly discloses that acetic acid may be replaced in an electrolyte solution with organic acids of the aliphatic series, including butyric acid and isobutyric acid. Ex. 1015, 3:73–79. In its Second Motion to Amend, Patent Owner does not point to any persuasive evidence to support or explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered isobutyric acid, as implied in Clark and expressly identified in GB 466,193, to be a suitable substitute for acetic acid in the electrolyte of Shah. Indeed, similar to the disclosures of Clark and GB 466,193, the ’117 patent discloses that “other relatively weak organic acids of the general formula cnH2+nO2 (where n=2 to 7) are acceptable.”9 Thus, we are not persuaded that Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 fail to teach or suggest every limitation of proposed substitute claim 44.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Unexpected resultsObjective indicia no nexusNot shown unpatentable
“1 of Shah is ten times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, and the resulting conductivity (47.5 mS/cm) is 6.7 times higher than that of electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent (7.1 mS/cm). First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3); Ex. 1001, 2:14–16 (confirming that the ammonium salt “provides electrical conductivity” in the electrolyte). Given the disclosure of Evans that anode breakdown voltage decreases with increasing conductivity (conductivity being the inverse of resistivity), Patent Owner does not explain persuasively why the 150 volt difference in anode breakdown voltage between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is “contrary to” the teachings of Evans. First Mot. to Amend 9 (Table 3),11; Ex. 2004, 3 (Figure 4). Nor does Patent Owner explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art could not use the disclosure of Evans to modify the resistivity of the electrolyte of Shah, Clark, and GB 466,193 to obtain an anode breakdown voltage within the 370 to 400 volt range of proposed substitute claim 45. Thus, we are not persuaded that the 150 volt difference between electrolyte 1 of Shah and electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent is nonobvious or surprising. Patent Owner also contends that if acetic acid was equivalent to isobutyric acid, such that it could be replaced interchangeably, “a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 Patent electrolyte, both of which have almost identical pH~4.9.” First Mot. to Amend 11. We note, however, that, as set forth in Table 3 above, electrolyte 1 of Shah has a conductivity that is 6.7 times higher than electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent, as well as ten times the ammonium constituent, two and a half times the acid constituent, half the ethylene glycol, and five times the phosphoric acid as compared to electrolyte 2 of the ’117 patent. In view of the wide difference in constituents and resulting conductivity levels between the two electrolytes, and in view of the teaching of Evans that anode breakdown voltage depends on the resistivity of the electrolyte, Patent Owner provides insufficient argument or evidence to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that “[i]f acetic acid were equivalent to isobutyric acid . . . a substantially similar anode breakdown voltage would have been achieved in both Shah’s electrolyte and the ’117 patent electrolyte . . . .” First Mot. to Amend 11. Accordingly, even if arguments made in the First Motion to Amend were considered, we would still not be persuaded that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art. Thus, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner has carried its burden to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that proposed substitute claim 45 is patentable over the prior art of record.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 6,687,117 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 6,687,117 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2015 · IPR2015-01025 · APJ Justin Busch · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Bruwer did not teach the claimed touch-sensor-triggered find-in-the-dark indication, and Petitioner gave no persuasive reason to modify it.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“evidence of record, and we determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in establishing that claims 1, 3, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious in view of Bruwer. Although Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s assertions that Bruwer’s disclosures render the subject matter of the challenged claims obvious we find Petitioner has not met its burden of establishing that the subject matter of the challenged claims would have been obvious in view of Bruwer.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Figure 11 and its accompanying description, however, describe a circuit that activates the FITD indication either “when switch 1111 is closed by the user” or “[w]hen microchip 1113 pulls the line 1114 to high.” Ex. 1004, 13:29–30. Thus, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the portion of Bruwer cited by Petitioner and Dr. Horenstein does not disclose that the microchip activates the FITD indication in response to input from switch 1111, as required by claim 1. Although Petitioner provides a rationale as to why it would have been obvious to activate the FITD indication when the load is inactive, Petitioner provides no persuasive analysis or rationale for modifying Bruwer’s disclosed circuit to teach that the “microchip, in response to at least a signal from the touch sensor, is configured for activating a visible find-in-the-dark indication, when the load is not activated,” as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,265,494
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.