• Google LLC v. Wildseed Mobile, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00247 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Remand

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable over Rothschild alone or Rothschild and Chen because Petitioner did not sufficiently explain or support how the IM modality generates the claimed hot link.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “disclaim HTML-formatted advertisements in IM,” and that there is no evidence or expert testimony that IM messages are incompatible with HTML tags. Pet. Remand Reply 4–7 (also stating, “nor did Patent Owner contest the Petition’s showing with respect to the IM limitation of claim 15”). However, in inter partes review, the burden is on Petitioner to explain and support its assertions; it is not on Patent Owner to prove that its claims are not unpatentable. In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d at 1375; PO Remand Resp. 5. Petitioner must explain how Rothschild teaches generating a hot link message, in an instant message communication, that includes the determined action and instructions for rendering and displaying the hot link. Petitioner’s reliance on a list of communication types is insufficient because although personal communications are sent “with” an advertisement, not all members of that list (e.g., SMS) generate a hot link message having the claimed instructions in the manner (formatting) asserted by Petitioner. Ex. 1005, 8:3–6; Ex. 2009 ¶ 64.” slip op. at 12

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

    “link message by IM is that Rothschild states that “a personal communication can include, but is not limited to, an e-mail message, text message, short message service (SMS) message, chat-room message, instant messaging message, video message, voice message, and any other personalized network communications.” Pet. 40 (quoting Ex. 1005, 8:6–11); Pet. Remand Reply 2, 5–6 (arguing that this is unrebutted by Patent Owner). Such an explanation would be sufficient if each of those communications were shown to work in the same manner as email, such that no further explanation would be required to show that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand how Petitioner’s email and HTML tag explanations applied to each of the other message types. formatting step, which is required under Petitioner’s assertions for limitation [10.7]. Ex. 2009 ¶¶57 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 10), 60 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 11), 64 (“[t]here is no formatting step for the SMS message, only for e-mail.”), 76 (“SMS messages . . . do not use HTML”); PO Sur-reply 27. Nor does Petitioner assert or explain that IM messages are formatted so as to teach the generating step of limitation [1.4]/[10.7]. Pet. 32 (“Rothschild’s server generates a hot link message when the web server formats the message data into an e-mail that contains the selected interactive advertisement.”). Because Petitioner’s “generating a hot link” assertions rely on the use of HTML (in email), and one of Rothschild’s listed communication types (SMS) does not use HTML, Petitioner fails to show persuasively that an artisan of ordinary skill would have interpreted each of Rothschild’s other listed types of personal communication as using HTML to generate a hot link in the claimed manner.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Although Dr. Houh testifies that the use of IM would have been obvious, this testimony is a verbatim copy of what the Petition says on claim 5. Compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–81, 130–31 with Pet. 41. Dr. Houh cites to Rothschild’s list of communication types, but provides no analysis or reasoning or further evidence for his obviousness conclusion in the Houh Declaration. As such, it is a bare conclusory statement entitled to little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinions is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We further note that although Dr. Houh relies upon Rothschild’s “interactive advertisement that is displayed with a graphic and includes an embedded URL,” Dr. Houh does not explain how each of the listed communication types (which include a voice message), or IM specifically, have these properties. Ex. 1003 ¶ 58.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,869,169 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,869,169
• Duration Media LLC v. Rich Media Club LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 19, 2024 · IPR2023-00953 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not proven unpatentable under either §103 ground because the evidence did not show the claimed viewability determination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find Patent Owner’s argument persuasive. Indeed, it is unclear how Petitioner’s proposal accounts for the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. See Daiichi Sankyo, 501 F.3d at 1256 (identifying these factors, among others, as “a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art”). Nor does Petitioner, in its Reply, address, let alone rebut, Patent Owner’s arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had some experience and/or knowledge in internet advertising. See generally Pet. Reply. Patent Owner proposes that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science or a similar major involving computer programming (or at least four years of practical computer programming experience) and at least two years of experience (in or out of college) in the field of internet advertising.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2045 ¶54). We agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have some experience in internet advertising, although we fail to see why one year would not be enough to familiarize sufficiently a computer scientist and/or programmer with the types of problems encountered in the art or prior art solutions to those problems. Based on the competing proposals, arguments, and evidence before us, we adopt and apply the following level of skill in assessing Petitioner’s challenges to the patentability of the claims of the ’329 patent: a person that would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical (or similar) engineering with about three years of experience being in the field of internet advertising.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s resurrected argument is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of § 311(b). Section 311(b) provides: “A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed cancel the claims of the ’329 patent on the basis of Badros, Harkins, and Krassner. Pet. 11. Petitioner did not base its request, in whole or in part, on the Krassner publication. Id. Krassner clearly is a patent. It issued on August 13, 2019, far too late to be § 102(b) prior art. Even if we assume Krassner is also a “printed publication” withing the meaning of § 311(b), the same date would apply: August 13, 2019. Petitioner has not presented any evidence that the document that is Krassner was published prior to when it issued on August 13, 2019. That another document (the Krassner publication), which published much earlier, may contain the same or similar disclosure is not relevant to when Krassner was patented or published. In sum, Krassner is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). b) Whether Krassner is Prior Art Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) Although Krassner is not prior under 35 U.S.C.§ 102(b), we” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner responds that, contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, “Harkins teaches that its invention can be used in web pages.” Pet. Reply 18 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶30). Although Petitioner’s citation is off by one paragraph, Petitioner’s response about what Harkins teaches is correct. See Ex. 1004 ¶29 (“The present invention may be implemented for provision of virtually any type of advertising (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet, billboard, etc.) via any type of advertising medium (e.g., newspaper, magazine, radio broadcast, Web pages, billboards, etc.) without departing from the scope of the present invention.”). We find that Harkins is from the same field based on its express statement that it is applicable to “virtually any type of advertising” and “any type of advertising medium,” including “Web pages.” Ex. 1004 ¶29. Further, even if this were insufficient to place Harkins in the same field as the ’329 patent, we find that Harkins is reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the ’329 patent inventors were involved. In sum, we find that Harkins is analogous art to the ’329 patent.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted

    “Paper 60 (“PO Mot. To Exclude”), 9–10.6 Patent Owner is correct in this regard and, thus, we grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude with respect to the testimony in the second Smedley Declaration and the Madansky Declaration opining that Badros teaches the determination limitation. Paper 60, 9–12. Petitioner, in its Opposition to the Motion to Exclude, argues that Patent Owner’s arguments about the “viewability test” were “surprising.” Paper 62, 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument. The “viewability test” is a claim limitation. Petitioner should have anticipated that Patent Owner would argue that limitation. See In re Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“This court has held that when evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” (citing Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); Univ. of Strathclyde v. 6 Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude seeks to exclude, in part or in whole, Exhibits 1020–1022, 1025–1030, and 1034–1040, which were submitted with Petitioner’s Reply, of which Exhibits 1026 and 1027 are the declaration by Dr. Madansky and the second declaration by Dr. Smedley, respectively. Mot. To Exclude. The Motion to Exclude also seeks to exclude “Exhibits” 1017 and 1018, which are not filed or of record in this case but which are referenced in the Reply. Id. For example, Exhibit 1017 is the Krassner publication, which Petitioner unsuccessfully moved to add to the record as supplemental information. See Paper 21, 3 n.1 (expunging the Krassner publication and stating that it “need not -- and indeed may not -- be re-filed under a new exhibit number”). Apart from the portions of Dr. Smedley’s second declaration and Dr. Madansky’s declaration opining that Badros teaches the “determination” limitation, we dismiss the Motion to Exclude as moot. obviousness determination generally requires a finding that “all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art’.” (citing PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Petitioner argues that “[v]iewability tests were well known for well over a decade prior to the ’329 patent’s priority date.” Reply 9. If that were the case, then Petitioner should have made its argument in the Petition. Section 312(a) of Title 35 is titled “Requirements of Petition,” and it specifies that a petition must identify, among other things, “the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim, including . . . (B) affidavits or declarations of supporting evidence and opinions, if the petitioner relies on expert opinions.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon; and . . . the supporting evidence relied upon to support the challenge.”). Thus, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Board’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (Nov. 21, 2019).7 Dr. Smedley’s testimony in his second declaration, that “Badros discloses Patent Owner’s ‘viewability test’” (Ex. 1027 ¶11), is clearly evidence to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. The same is true of Dr. Madansky’s testimony that she agrees with Dr. Smedley in this regard. Ex. 1026 ¶4.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,443,329 not shown unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,443,329
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 25, 2024 · IPR2023-00341 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 were not shown unpatentable over Lebrun and Wang or over Prajapat and Wang because the combinations did not teach key invitation and webpage retrieval limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “of the parties, we found that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, 7 Patent Owner has not offered objective evidence of non-obviousness. See generally PO Resp.; PO Sur-reply; see also Pet. 21 (indicating Petitioner is not aware of any evidence of secondary considerations). least two years of work experience in software development and/or web-based software,” which reflected Petitioner’s proposal. Dec. 12; see Dec. 10–12 (discussing the respective proposals and level of ordinary skill reflected in the challenged patent and asserted prior art). Patent Owner accepts this level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 37. Accordingly, we apply this determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedGranted in part

    “surfing server as forwarding the session-creation message to the invited web client. PO Sur-reply 12. Although Lebrun describes the group-surfing server as “informing the participants in the group-surfing server session” after receiving the session-creation message and creating the group-surfing session, Lebrun does not describe forwarding or otherwise sending the session-creation message to the participants. Ex. 1005, 32:26–28, 44:12–14. Petitioner’s citations in this regard to Dr. Lieberman’s declaration do not adequately support Petitioner’s “forwarding” contention. Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 149); Ex. 1003 ¶ 37 (indicating the challenged patent describes the invitation as being sent by email, instant message, or social network communication); Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (describing the group-surfing server receiving the session-creation message, creating the group-surfing session, and “inform[ing] the participants in the group-surfing session”). Petitioner does not identify any testimony from Dr. Lieberman that supports Petitioner’s Reply position that Lebrun’s group-surfing server “forwards” the session-creation message to the group-surfing session participants, nor are we aware of any such testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 149 (The group-surfing server “responds to the group session request ‘by (1) creating a group-surfing session, and (2) informing the participants [web clients] in the group-surfing session.”); see generally Ex. 1034. Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 29

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

    “receive webpage content from the website server in particular ways as identified in limitations [1e] and [1g]. Similarly, claim 1 requires the invitee device to retrieve data from the website server in response to receiving “the information related to the shared web browsing interaction from the synchronization server” (limitation [1f.iii]). For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence its combination of Lebrun and Wang does so. For the required website server interaction, in its Petition, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s description of an alternative embodiment applicable only when no cookies or other identity information are involved (Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). See, e.g., Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1005, 35:17–19). As Patent Owner indicates, this alternative is not relevant to the subject matter recited in claim 1 which requires identity information. PO Resp. 45. Petitioner does not address this shortcoming in its Reply. See generally Pet. Reply. Rather, in its Reply, for website server interaction, Petitioner relies on Lebrun’s functionality of sending a web page from the web server to the web client as shown in Lebrun’s Figure 1. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005, 32:21–24, 31:27–30, Fig. 1). Specifically, Petitioner contends that Lebrun discloses that (i) a URL for the initial web page is included in session-creation message 151 (Ex. 1005, 32:21–24), (ii) the web site sends a web page directly to the web client (Fig. 1), and (iii) the web site delivers information 132 to web clients or the group-surfing server 140 “in response Pet. Reply 11. Although this shows the web site sending a web page directly to a web client, the prior art of Lebrun does not do so in the manner required by the claims (limitations [1e], [1f.i], [1f.iii], [1g]).” slip op. at 46

  Patent outcomesUS 9,483,448 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,483,448
• Sony Group Corp. (Japan) / Sony Corp. Of America et al. v. MZ Audio Sciences, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2024 · IPR2022-01544 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish sufficient reasons to combine the references in any of the three obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related field with coursework in signal processing, plus two years of academic and/or industry experience in signal processing or a related field. More education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 7. “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 2. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art, other references of record, and the ’961 patent specification.” slip op. at 7

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

    “district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under this standard, claim terms have their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Petitioner relies on the plain and ordinary meaning and contends that it is unnecessary to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 8 (citing 37 C.F.R. §42.100(b)). Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that, for purposes of this Response only, all terms of the ᾽961 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” PO Resp. 23. As Petitioner contends, it is not necessary Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 7

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

    “Dr. Scordilis. Based on the record, Petitioner fails to provide a sufficient reason to arrive at the claimed invention and satisfy the burden of showing obviousness. As Patent Owner essentially argues, Cabot (and all references relied upon by Petitioner and Dr. Scordilis) do not pertain to “quantizing a phase difference of the at least one overtone relative to the fundamental tone to embed at least one bit of the data to be embedded” as step 1C-2 requires. See PO Resp. 32–33. Petitioner also relies on Kudumakis to modify Srinivasan in asserting that step 1C-2 would have been obvious, but Petitioner’s reliance on Kudumakis is also faulty as explained below. See Pet. 22–27 (relying on Ex. 1006 (Cabot), Ex. 1007 (Kudumakis); Ex. 1028 (Risset), Ex. 1031 (Lipshitz), Ex. 1055 (“Cox-SSSW”); Ex. 1020 (“Cox- 1995” ); Ex. 1021 (“Wu”)). articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a sufficient reason to modify Srinivasan’s frequencies to embed a quantized phase difference between a fundamental and its harmonic into the harmonic as step 1C-2 requires. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988 (“[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”)); In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“teachings of references can be combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do so”) (quoting ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As noted above, Dr. Scordilis states that Cabot merely “opens the venue for exploration” for an artisan of ordinary skill to “try to . . . explore” watermarks. Ex. 2011, 75:16–22. Dr. Scordolis’s testimony relates to an “obvious to try” rationale, but neither Dr. Scordilis’s testimony, nor Petitioner’s showing, satisfies the conditions to support that rationale. In particular, Dr. Scordilis does not testify, and Petitioner does not show, that the technique of embedding phase difference codes into a harmonic relative to its fundamental was one of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” and a “known option[]” for hiding data. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 402 (indicating that under an “obvious to try” rationale, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp” (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr Scordilis’s testimony. Dr. Scordilis does not rely on any references that “have a frequencies specifically.” See Ex. 2011, 90:4–8 (testifying such references are “[n]ot in [his] report”). Moreover, Dr. Scordilis testifies that “[t]he value . . . of Cabot’s work is that he points to the fact that even in this very controlled experiment, although phase is detectable in an A/B type of setup under many, many repetitions, it really opens the venue for exploration that a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would try to capitalize and explore further to develop a watermark.” Id. at 75:16–22 (emphasis added). In summary, Dr. Scordilis testifies that no references (including Cabot) cited in his declaration discuss phase encoding of a harmonic phase relative to a fundamental phase for watermarking, and Cabot merely opens the door so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “try to . . . explore further to develop a watermark” using harmonic phase coding data. Id.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 7,289,961 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,289,961
• Apple Inc. v. Scramoge Technology Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00118 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Hasegawa under § 103 because Hasegawa did not disclose the separately claimed connection terminals.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We turn first to the language of the claim. Claim 6 recites a coil, a first connection terminal connected to an outer end of the coil and a second connection terminal connected to an inner end of the coil (claim limitations 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3). Claim 6 further recites a connecting unit (claim limitation 6.5) comprising a third connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal, a fourth connection terminal connected to the first connection terminal, and a wiring layer connected to the third connection terminal (claim limitations 6.6, 6.7, and 6.8). Claim 6 does not explicitly recite a connection between the coil and the connecting unit, except through the first and second terminals, i.e., the first and second connection terminals are connected to the outer and inner ends of the coil and the third and fourth connection terminals of the connecting unit, respectively. The Specification informs us that “the coil unit 200 (subject matter not recited in the claim) may include first connection terminal 210, a second connection terminal 220 and a coil 230” and that “first connection terminal 210 is located at one end of the coil 230 and the second connection terminal is provided at the other end of the coil 230.” Ex. 1001, 4:57–63. The Specification further states “[t]he first and second connection terminals 210 and 220 are necessary for connection with the connecting unit 300.” Id. at 4:66–67. The claim recites the first and second connection terminals are connected to the coil; and the Specification describes the first and second connection terminals 210, 220 as being part of coil unit 200, a structure different from coil 230. The Specification does not describe an embodiment in which the first and second connection terminals are not part of a coil unit that is separate from the connecting unit. Therefore, we do not read claim 6 to encompass an embodiment in which the first and second connection terminals are part of the coil itself or are part of a connecting unit that is directly connected to the coil without a separate coil unit in between them.. A reading of the claim that is consistent with the claim language and the Specification also requires we read claim 6 to require that the coil and the connecting unit are separate.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The fundamental premise of Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with our claim construction. Section V supra. Petitioner acknowledges that in Hasegawa the entire line 34, 35 (not just the ends) is a part of the connecting unit. Pet. 31; Reply 2; Hr’g. Tr. 10:1–14:15. In Hasegawa, then, all the connection terminals (the first, second, third and fourth terminals) are on the connecting unit. Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Hasegawa does not disclose the claimed first and second connection terminals connected to the coil as separate and distinct from the claimed “connecting unit” that overlaps the receiving space. Petitioner has thus failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 6 is unpatentable. 3. Independent Claim 16 Independent claim 16 is similar to claim 6, except that instead of limiting the location of the connecting unit to “overlapping the receiving space in a vertical direction perpendicular to the adhesive layer,” as recited in claim 6, claim 16 recites only that the connecting unit is “disposed corresponding to the receiving space.” The difference between claims 6 and 16 does not bear on the parties’ arguments or on the substance of our analysis concerning the disclosures in Hasegawa. See Pet. 38–42. Therefore, we determine that Petitioner has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that challenged claim 16 is unpatentable over Hasegawa.” slip op. at 19

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the supporting evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Having determined that no challenged claims are unpatentable, we dismiss Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend as moot.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 10,804,740 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,804,740
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00762 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–12 not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that FlexWave Prism Manual was publicly accessible before the critical date.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Our determination regards obviousness to an ordinarily skilled person rather than “to the judge, or to a layman, or to those skilled in remote arts, or to geniuses in the art at hand.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 697 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). We therefore remove the open-ended term “a minimum of” from Petitioner’s proposal, and adopt for this decision the following definition: “a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have had: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) 3–4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering. However, an individual with an advanced degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” This level of skill comports with the teachings of the ’508 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017 (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). No claim terms require construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedNot shown unpatentable

    “c) Conclusion After considering this record evidence, Petitioner has not shown that one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches Mr. Stravitz performed on the EAS database. Mr. Stravitz’s searches appear to have been performed at the direction of counsel to discover whether and how FlexWave Prism Manual could be retrieved from the EAS database by someone who knew about FlexWave Prism Manual, without consideration of whether one of ordinary skill would have performed the searches absent a search directed towards FlexWave Prism Manual or would have known about the EAS database. Thus, Petitioner has not shown that one interested in and ordinarily skilled in the art relating to the ’508 patent would have found FlexWave Prism Manual using the EAS database.” slip op. at 25

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

    “For these reasons, our determination is that FlexWave Prism Manual has not been shown to be publicly available. E. Conclusion For the reasons given above, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that FlexWave Prism Manual was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons of ordinary skill in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, could have located it. All instituted grounds of unpatentability rely on FlexWave Prism Manual. Pet. 23–77; see Dec. on Inst. 17–29. Therefore, Petitioner fails to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the challenged claims are unpatentable based on the instituted grounds.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 9,826,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,826,508
• Corning Optical Communications LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 19, 2022 · IPR2021-00408 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are not unpatentable because Petitioner did not show that Kummetz-464 discloses the claimed QoS of network traffic used to reconfigure sectors.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution, we concluded that one of ordinary skill would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering; and (2) a minimum of 3-4 years of industry experience in wireless communications networks and engineering. Dec. on Inst. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28). We additionally concluded that “an individual with an advanced degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1-2 years),” and that “the person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would additionally possess some experience with or knowledge of DAS.” 6 The record does not include any evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness. court action), 100:15–102:8). Patent Owner notes its agreement with this conclusion, and its expert adopted it. PO Resp. 22; Ex. 2023 ¶ 5. Petitioner provides no further comment in its post-institution briefing. After considering the record, we conclude that the same level of skill we adopted in the Decision on Institution should apply. This level of skill comports with the disclosures of the ’454 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “As noted in the Decision on Institution, a claim construction order issued in the related district court action in the final week of the period set forth for institution. Id. at 16 n.11. This claim construction order adopts Petitioner’s proposed definition. Ex. 1017, 14–21. has not established that Kummetz-464 teaches the determination of a QoS of network traffic. Thus, we need not resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. 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 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that the relative concentration of devices is a function of the number of users, which is a KPI. See Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶ 95. But we determine Petitioner fails to establish the relative concentration of devices is a quality of service of a network traffic. Petitioner’s declarant describes QoS as a function of KPIs without more, and asserts that the relative concentration of devices between coverage zones would be a QoS. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 93–103 (concluding that “Kummetz[-464] discloses that the controller 108 can determine one or more traffic indicators (i.e., KPIs) and a function of the traffic indicators (i.e., QoS = function of the one or more KPI” and “network performance is expressed by a number of KPIs which leads to the QoS”). While Petitioner’s declarant describes this as consistent with the teachings of the ’454 patent relating to adjusting traffic loads, no explanation is provided as to how capacity (as in Kummetz-464’s example) would meet the requirement of a QoS of network traffic, and no further testimony or evidence was adduced regarding what one of ordinary skill in the art would have thought QoS to mean. See id. We credit the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert that the plain meaning of “QoS” requires that the QoS be a value that indicates network performance.7 Ex. 2023 ¶ 55. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not establish Kummetz-464 discloses that a concentration of wireless devices is indicates network performance. See PO Resp. 43. As noted by Patent Owner during oral argument, “[y]ou can have perfect information of relative concentration of devices and still not know anything about network traffic.” Tr. 36. Patent Owner provides an example of a church service in which there are a large number of users (large concentration of user devices), but no traffic. Tr. 38. Conversely, we observe that a small concentration of user devices may have a large impact on network performance if engaged in activities requiring heavy network traffic usage. 7 We respectfully disagree with the dissent that the specification requires a different interpretation. The ’454 patent describes a QoS as a weighted combination of three KPIs (cost factors) that indicates network performance. See Ex. 1001 11:48–50, 14:41–51. This supports Patent Owner’s position that the plain and ordinary meaning of quality of service (QoS) indicates network performance. Although the KPIs discussed are exemplary, to fall within the bounds of claim 1, the plain meaning of quality of service of a network traffic requires the function to indicate network performance (i.e., the “quality” of the network). be a function of KPIs, but it is not a QoS according to the plain meaning of that term, and is not “of a network traffic” because it may be unrelated to network traffic. Thus, Petitioner fails to persuade us that Kummetz-464’s description of a concentration of wireless devices discloses a quality of service of a network traffic. We further determine that Petitioner fails to establish Kummetz-464’s” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,506,454 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,506,454
• Ebay Inc. v. Masterobjects, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2018 · IPR2017-00740 · APJ Christa P Zado · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15–17, 21, 24–26, and 32–37 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not establish the claimed usability test.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems encountered in the art, the 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).” slip op. at 9

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

    “interpreted according to their “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent” in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2141–46 (2016). We interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “1. Overview of Kravets (Ex. 1003) Petitioner asserts Kravets is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 15. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion that Kravets is prior art. Kravets issued from a patent application filed January 31, 2000. Ex. 1003, [22]. Based on the earliest possible priority date of the ’024 patent (see supra Section I.C), for purposes of this Final Written Decision, we conclude that Kravets is prior art to the ’024 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “display to the user includes 1) PSS 40 identifying a first set of search terms, which preferably comprises 500 search terms, where the first n characters of each search term matches the n-character input string in the request (Ex. 1003, 6:17–36); and 2) PSS 40 selecting a second set of search terms, such as 6 terms, from the first set of search terms by selecting the 6 terms that have the highest value scores (Ex. 1003, 7:26–40). This disclosure does not describe a client object testing for usability by checking that a return message corresponds to the latest query. First, this disclosure relates to actions performed by the server, rather than the client. Id. at 6:17–36, 7:26–40 (describing PSS 40 performing this technique). But claim 1 requires the client object perform the test for usability. Ex. 1001, 32:2–3 (“the client object tests the usability of the results in the return message”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,539,024 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,539,024
• Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. / Wockhardt Bio AG et al. v. Astrazeneca ABNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 18, 2017 · IPR2015-01340 · APJ Rama G Elluru · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioners failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 6–22, 25–30, 32–37, and 39–42 unpatentable under the instituted §103 grounds, chiefly because the proposed modifications lacked a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “C. Credibility of the Experts We give more weight to the testimony of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Weber, over that of Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Rotella, with respect to testimony that is in direct conflict. We favor Dr. Weber’s testimony because of her extensive experience in the design and development of DP 4 inhibitors for type-2 diabetes treatment. See Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 9–12; Ex. 2210, 1– 2. Moreover, Dr. Weber entered the DP 4 field at the relevant time, i.e., the time of invention, around 2000. Ex. 1073, 108:16–21; Tr. 35:16–22. We find that her testimony has been consistent, not just throughout this proceeding, but also with evidence predating this proceeding. See, e.g., Ex. 2056 ¶¶ 88, 115–118; 154–162; Ex. 1073, 51:2–54:14, 113:6–16, 119:19– 121:9; Ex. 2161, 558.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “The parties’ formulations as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and neither side identifies with specificity an error in the opposing side’s formulation. See PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 10. On the record presented, we hold that the cited prior art is representative of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the cited references themselves). Specifically, the references are consistent with the parties’ formulations and demonstrate the level of skill in the art. Our determinations regarding the patentability of the challenged claims would remain the same under either side’s proposed formulation.” slip op. at 8

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

    “On the full record before us, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a skilled artisan would have chosen Ashworth I’s compound 25 as a “lead compound.” Although Ashworth I indicates that compounds 24–29 were non-toxic in T cell assays up to 72 hours, and further indicates compound 25 was one among four compounds that were comparable to boroprolines, no further data is provided to guide the skilled artisan to select compound 25 among the other 2-cyanopyrrolidides as a lead compound for further modification to develop a DP 4 inhibitor. Ex. 1007, 1165–66. More importantly, the data reported in Ashworth I was based on in vitro data at room temperature, not in vivo data. PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2174, 82:23–83:11). Indeed, Dr. Rotella states, “those studies were carried out at room temperature, which is roughly 20 degrees [Celsius]. I’ll point out that body temperature is higher than that, and that temperature has a direct effect on half-life. As you elevate temperature, you can expect half-life to decrease.” Ex. 2174, 82:23-83:11. Dr. Rotella further admits that he is not aware of any disclosure describing testing of Ashworth compounds in humans. Ex. 2174, 60:23-61:9. In addition, Ashworth I acknowledged that these compounds exhibited an intramolecular cyclization problem and that further work on optimization of the pyrrolidine ring was necessary and would be reported shortly. Ex. 1007, 1163–65. Others in the prior art also continued to seek solutions to the problem of intramolecular cyclization, such as those posed by Ashworth I compounds. See PO Resp. 27–28.” slip op. at 16

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

    “(4) No Reasonable Expectation of Increasing Stability We are not persuaded that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving increased stability of Ashworth I’s compound 25 based on Hanessian I’s teachings concerning the cyclopropanation of proline. See Pet. 29. There was no disclosure in the prior art of cylopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25, or any similar compound. Indeed, Dr. Rotella admitted “that there wasn’t anything in the literature prior to the invention of saxagliptin that actually suggested that cyclopropanation of an Ashworth-One type DPP4 inhibitor would improve its stability.” Ex. 2174, 142:3-9. In addition, there is not sufficient evidence as to how the modified cyano-moiety would have been understood to affect compound 25’s stability. Given the structural differences, we find there is insufficient evidence suggesting that the skilled artisan could have reasonably predicted how cyclopropanating compound 25’s P1 group (as opposed to the proline compound discussed in Hanessian I) would have affected the cyano moiety’s (as opposed to the substituent in Hanessian I) orientation in space. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence as to whether that modified orientation would have sufficiently decreased intramolecular cyclization. Indeed, Dr. Rotella testified that: [I]n the process of that modification of orientation in space [when you fuse two rings together], you may observe effects on potency, you may observe effects on solution stability, you may observe other effects on other properties that one might measure in connection with a drug discovery project. Ex. 2174, 119:10–120:2. When asked, “[a]nd those effects might be either positive or negative; correct?” Dr. Rotella replied, “[t]hey might be, yes.” Ex. 2174, 120:3–5. Dr. Rotella also testified that at the time of the invention, the objective of adding a cyclopropyl substituent to the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 would have been exploratory. He testified: Q. Well, what is the objective of putting the cyclopropane on the molecule, in your opinion? A. There are two possible objectives based on the data -- there are at least two possible objectives based on the data available surrounding compound 25. Q. And what are they? A. One would be to explore whether or not you could improve potency. A second would be whether or not you could improve solution stability. One might also explore how that -- those changes, either by themselves or in combination with two changes, might also improve or change -- sorry -- to improve solid-state stability. Furthermore, since nothing is known, at least at this point in time, about other properties associated with compound 25, you’d want to understand what those properties were and adjust them as need be. Generally speaking, those properties are things that we call, collectively, pharmaceutical properties. Ex. 2174, 115:11–116:13 (emphasis added). This testimony does not sufficiently support Petitioners’ contention that a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected cyclopropanating the pyrrolidine ring of compound 25 to increase its stability.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS RE44,186 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
• Coalition For Affordable Drugs Viii, LLC v. The Trustees Of The University Of PennsylvaniaNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2017 · IPR2015-01836 · APJ Lora M Green · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the prior art did not establish a reasonable expectation of success using lomitapide in the claimed dosing regimen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “The reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to the likelihood of success in combining references to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to reasonable expectation of success, we agree with Patent Owner that the ordinary artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success of combining Pink Sheet with Chang to arrive at the claimed invention. To the extent that Petitioner relies on our Institution Decision, we note that decision was based on the evidence of record at that time. The evidence advanced by Patent Owner during trial, discussed herein, however, tips the scale in favor of a finding different from that set forth in our Institution Decision. slip op. at 36

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “As to Exhibit 1052, which is the Deposition Transcript of S. David Kimball, and which Patent Owner acknowledges that Petitioner cites in its Reply, Patent Owner argues that it timely objected to the exhibit as an improper duplicate of Exhibit 2304. Mot. Exclude 7. Petitioner responds that Exhibits 2304 and 1052 are the transcripts of Petitioner’s expert. Opp. Mot. Exclude 4. Although acknowledging that the party taking the deposition normally files the transcript, Petitioner asserts that its Reply cites to Ex. 1056, and Patent Owner does not cite to either exhibit. Id. Patent Owner replies that Exhibit 2304 also contains Dr. Kimball’s signed errata sheet and is, thus, the more complete of the two documents. Reply Mot. Exclude. 3. Patent Owner asserts that the citations in Petitioner’s Reply can be updated to reflect the correct exhibit number, if necessary. Id. Given the posture of this proceeding, that is, it is at final written decision, and as Patent Owner notes, the two documents are not exact duplicates, we decline to exclude Ex. 1056, but will allow both Exhibit 1056 and 2034 to remain in the record.” slip op. at 44

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached

    “the unrebutted evidence of commercial success further supports the patentability of the challenged claims. Looking at the entire record before us, we conclude that Petitioner has not meet its burden to establish unpatentability of challenged claims 1‒8 by a preponderance of the evidence over the combination of Pink Sheet and Chang. E. Motion to Amend As discussed above, because we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated the obviousness of the claims by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not reach the merits of Patent Owner’s contingent Motion to Amend (Paper 24). We, thus, dismiss the motion a moot.” slip op. at 44

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “biotechnology and medical device companies.” Id. The press release does not even mention Dr. Stein. Thus, there is nothing in the press release suggesting that the ordinary artisan in the cardiovascular/cardiac field, or interested in MTP inhibitors, should attend the presentation. We, therefore, decline to credit Dr. Mayersohn’s testimony that “[a]person of ordinary skill in the art interested in the development of MTP inhibitors could apparently have attended the meeting or accessed the presentation itself via webcast or on the PPD website shortly thereafter” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 25 (citing the PPD Press Release)), as there was nothing in the press release discussing MTP inhibitors. That finding informs our analysis of the factors set forth in Klopfenstein. Thus, although the ordinary artisan may have been able to copy the presentation, and although there may have been an expectation that the materials could be copied, Petitioner does not provide any evidence establishing that the target audience would have been an ordinary artisan in the relevant field.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 7,932,268 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,932,268

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.