- Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
- 101 substituteMixed
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,134,087 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00013 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing of its decisions denying institution of CBM review of the challenged claims in four proceedings, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner also contends that the Board failed to consider its obviousness arguments. Req. Reh’g 14–15. We considered these arguments, but ultimately found them unpersuasive. Inst. Dec. 13–14. In short, Petitioner presumed a construction of “using the relational database management system to . . . calculate” that we did not adopt, and did not explain sufficiently why the prior art of record would have rendered the challenged claims obvious under the adopted claim construction. A request for rehearing is not an opportunity to remedy these deficiencies.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkeley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · CBM2019-00009 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing requests, leaving in place the denials of CBM review based on the petition’s failure to show the challenged claims unpatentable under the adopted construction.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“the relational database management system to . . . calculate” as requiring that the recited calculations be performed “in the RDBMS.” Inst. Dec. 8–10. Petitioner did not provide an express construction for this claim term in the Petition. Id. at 7. For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, and after reviewing the claim language, the written description of the involved patents, and the relevant prosecution history, we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Id. at 8–10. Petitioner contends the construction adopted by the panel is incorrect because the claims on their face are broad enough to encompass “[a]ny use of the RDBMS,” for example using the RDBMS to” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“As explained in the Institution Decision, Petitioner’s arguments with respect to whether the challenged claims recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art relied on a claim construction that we did not adopt. Inst. Dec. 13–14. As such, the Petition did not adequately explain why it was not novel and obvious to use an RDBMS itself to perform the claimed profit calculations. Id. at 14. Although Petitioner disagrees with our conclusion, and now cites to disparate portions of the Petition to support its argument, a mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing, and a rehearing request is not the proper vehicle to make arguments that were not clearly set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,882,137 - BMW Of North America, LLC v. Carrum Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2019-00928 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, relying on Winner’s existing methods for detecting turns.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the Petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“6. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner. As Winner discloses methods for identifying when a vehicle has entered a curve (measuring transverse acceleration and using the forward facing radar), it is not evident why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Fukada to obtain additional Petitioner is relying on alleged AAPA7 to provide reasoning in support of the proposed combination, we note that identification of a problem “is not an admission that this problem was known or appreciated by others.” Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Actavis LLC, 922 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Innogenics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008))). Thus, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In view of our analysis discussed below, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim term of the ’416 patent, because construing these terms is not necessary for us to assess the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the ’416 patent was filed would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related engineering discipline and two to three years of industry experience in the field of automotive control systems or automotive engineering, or equivalent experience, education, or both.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner asserts further that “[t]he person would also have knowledge or familiarity with in-vehicle computing.” Id. Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s definition of a POSA.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (citing Pet. 9). Accordingly, for the purposes of this Decision, we 6 We note that at this time no objective evidence of nonobviousness has been presented by Patent Owner. consistent with the evidence at this stage of the proceeding, including the ’416 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,925,416 - BASF Corporation v. Ingevity South Carolina, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 17, 2019 · IPR2019-00202 · APJ Christopher L Crumbley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and maintained its denial of institution because BASF did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“when rehearing a decision on a petition to institute trial the Board “will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The party requesting rehearing has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and “[t]he request must specifically identify all” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“In our Decision, we reviewed BASF’s arguments and submitted evidence, and concluded that the record lacked sufficient support for these three links in BASF’s logical chain. First, we found that BASF had not provided evidence “why a person of skill in the art would have been led by Park’s strength requirement for an air intake system to select Formulation D” for the evaporative emissions systems that are the focus of the ’844 patent. Dec. 17–18. Second, we found no reason to conclude that, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Park’s Formulation D to use in an evaporative emissions system, the resulting honeycomb would have the 73.8% voidages that Park considers desirable. Id. at 18–19. Finally, we found unsupported Mr. Lyons’ testimony that BAX 1500 carbon was the highest-capacity carbon known in the art at the time of the invention. Id. at 19–20. Each of these independent findings was sufficient to lead us to conclude that BASF had not shown that a system resulting from the use of Park’s honeycomb filter in an evaporative emissions system would necessarily have an IAC below 35 g/L, as required by the claims. Id. at 20–21. As such, we found that BASF had not established a reasonable likelihood that any claim of the ’844 patent was unpatentable.” slip op. at 4
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“insufficient to support a reasonable likelihood of inherency on this record. To justify a conclusion of inherency in an obviousness inquiry, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” Par Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014). In other words, even were we to accept BASF’s contentions that a person of ordinary skill would have formed a filter using Park’s Formulation D and having 73.8% voidages, we would also have to conclude that the artisan would have had reason to select a carbon that necessarily would result in an IAC below 35 g/L. And, as we stated in our Decision, the reason for selecting a particular carbon cannot be based on the very IAC property that is allegedly inherent. Dec. 14 (“properties that are inherent—and, therefore, possibly unknown—cannot be used as the basis for this motivation unless they were expected.”) (citing Honeywell Int’l v. Mexichem Amanco Holding, 865 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). BASF’s Petition discussed two available carbons, BAX 1100 and BAX 1500, because they were referenced in the specification of the ’844 patent. Pet. 23. But there is insufficient evidence in the record why these were the two carbons that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select from among the carbons that were available at the time of the invention, and the record is silent as to whether other carbons, if selected, would have necessarily resulted in the same IAC or lower. As we observed in our Decision, all that BASF presented on this point was the unsupported testimony of its expert that BAX 1500 had “the highest possible IAC known at the time of the ’844 patent.” Dec. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 111). Again, BASF cites our rules, contending that we erred by not viewing a disputed issue of material fact in the light most favorable to it. Req. Reh’g 14. In particular, BASF notes our statement in the Decision acknowledging that “BAX 1500 certainly has the highest IAC of any carbon disclosed in the ’844 patent,” and argues that this alone is “evidence in the record that BAX-1500 was the highest-capacity carbon available at the time.” Id. (citing Dec. 20). But the disclosure of two particular carbons in the record says nothing about the existence—or lack thereof—of other carbons. In other words, as we stated in the Decision, “on this record we cannot extrapolate beyond [the] disclosure to all activated carbons known at the time of the invention.” Dec. 20. The issue is not one of viewing a disputed issue of fact in the light most favorable in BASF; rather, it is an issue of BASF asking us to conclude from the disclosure of two carbons in the ’844 patent that these are the carbons that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Park, would have selected. The record is insufficient to reach such a conclusion, and we did not err in deciding so.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have selected Park’s Formulation D when creating a filter for use as a subsequent adsorption volume, BASF contends that we misapprehended its evidence supporting such a selection. Id. at 9–12. BASF notes its argument was that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected Formulation D “because it is the only formulation that meets Park’s explicit requirements for the air intake application: a carbon content of 25–35% by weight and an axial crushing strength from 1200–1600 psi.” Id. at 10 (citing Pet. 33–34). But BASF’s argument misses the point of our conclusion in the Decision, which was that the record contained no evidence that the requirements of an air intake application, as discussed by Park, were the same as the requirements of the evaporative emissions application that is the focus of the ’844 patent and the primary prior art references in each combination. In other words, while a person of ordinary skill in the art might have been led to Formulation D if trying to create a filter for an air intake system, the record contains no persuasive evidence that the same is true of the artisan creating an evaporative emissions system. Indeed, as we noted in the Decision, the only evidence on this point is to the contrary, and comes from Ingevity’s expert witness Dr. Ritter. As we noted, “Dr. Ritter testifies that evaporative emission systems and air intake systems are designed for use with different vapor concentrations and, more importantly, different flow rates.” Dec. 17 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 43–44).” slip op. at 5
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness - Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. v. Cameron International CorporationRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 15, 2019 · IPR2019-00804 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied the rehearing request and maintained denial of institution for claims 1–15 under § 325(d) based on Kajaria and Guidry.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD FOR REHEARING Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d): A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. When reconsidering a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion exists where a “decision [i]s based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dInstitution denied
“Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, Case IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 at 17–18 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part) and determined that the balance of these factors favored denial of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Dec. 11–23. As part of this analysis, we determined that: Kajaria was previously presented to the office during prosecution and was the basis for a rejection by the Examiner; Petitioner and the Examiner relied on the same disclosures of Kajaria to support their arguments; Petitioner did not sufficiently point out how the Examiner erred in his evaluation of Kajaria; and the declaration testimony of Mr. Ely did not warrant reconsideration of the prior art previously analyzed by the Examiner. Id. at 12–22.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Other
“fracturing tree, wherein the single outlet is coupled to the fracturing tree by a single fluid conduit that is the only fluid conduit connecting the skid apparatus in fluid communication with the well at which the one fracturing tree is positioned. Ex. 1001, 7:6–30.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“obviousness ground relies solely on modification of distribution modules 42. Req. Reh’g 14. According to Petitioner, the Petition specifically alleges that “it would have been obvious to modify any module, including specifically module 40, to use a single manifold, to support only a single valve group, for delivery of fluid to a single well, via a single fluid conduit.” Id. (citing Pet. 35–42, 49–52, 56–57; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 92, 96, 99, 102, 103, 122, 124–126, 128, 138). We did not misunderstand or misapprehend this argument; indeed, we noted its logical appeal. Dec. 21 n.10. We instead declined to credit the inference underpinning this argument, i.e., that a single-manifold embodiment would use a single fluid conduit, because the only reference of record having a single distribution module coupled to a single manifold had two fluid conduits extending from the distribution module to the well. Id. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that we misunderstood or overlooked Petitioner’s obviousness arguments.” slip op. at 11
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,903,190 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2019 · IPR2019-00989 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied on claims 1, 4, 7-9, 18, 21, 24-26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 because Kobata did not teach the required identifier placement.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and Preliminary Response shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Taking into account the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the information presented does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Microsoft will prevail in challenging the patentability of claims 1, 4, 7–9, 18, 21, 24–26, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, and 48 of the ’636 patent. We, therefore, decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Each of the independent claims of the ’636 patent recites “a second instance of the digital asset” with a “second unique identifier” and requires “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the digital content and at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” Ex. 1001, 1 On October 11, 2018, the USPTO revised its rules to harmonize the Board’s claim construction standard with that used in federal district court. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). This rule change applies to petitions filed on or after November 13, 2018. Id. 20:60–65 (claim 1), 22:34–39 (claim 18), 24:11–16. Further, the claims recite “the second instance of the digital asset include[s] the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset.” Id. at 20:67–21:3, 22:41–44, 24:17–20. We agree with Uniloc that “the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” refers to “the at least one other portion that does not include the digital content.” See Prelim. Resp. 5. Thus, we agree with Uniloc that the plain language of the claims requires “the second unique identifier” be “embedded” in a portion of the asset that “does not include the digital content” and is not, itself, embedded in the digital content. In fact, we see no other reasonable way to interpret this language. Further, we see nothing in the Specification that indicates the patentee intended an alternate meaning for any of the words at issue. For example, the Specification describes creating a first instantiation of the digital asset with “an original offset and serial number embedded within the digital content,” but does not specifically describe where the serial number resides in the second instantiation of the digital asset, noting only that “instead of merely copying the digital content as part of the transfer, the present invention creates a separate instantiation to facilitate tracking of each transfer (or transaction) within the system 100.” Ex. 1001, 14:22–33; see also id. at 15:25–30 (“At step 326 Customer Client Server module 124 marks the digital asset file with the new serial number and offset preferably using the same steganographic technique . . . and then stores the digital asset in a form suitable for later retrieval and play on the user’s system.”). Thus, we see nothing in the Specification demonstrating that the claims are meant to cover anything other than the plain meaning—the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentable
“Nowhere, however, does Microsoft explain how “ID portion 418” is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. To the contrary, Figure 4 of Kobata shows 418 to be embedded within Digital Content Data 410. Indeed, this fact is emphasized by Microsoft’s annotations of the Figure. See Pet. 33 (showing ID Portion 418 in purple completely surrounded by Digital Content Data 410 in yellow). Based on this flaw in the Petition, we cannot conclude that Microsoft has established a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would understand Kobata to teach or suggest the second unique identifier is embedded in a portion of the asset that does not include the digital content. Therefore, Microsoft has not shown that Kobata teaches or suggests “the second instance of the digital asset including the second unique identifier embedded in the at least one other portion of the second instance of the digital asset” as recited in the claim.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,706,636 - Microsoft Corporation v. Uniloc 2017 LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 9, 2019 · IPR2019-00976 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 7–10, 12, 15–18, 20, 23, and 24 were obvious over the asserted references.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence of record, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review. slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Id. ¶ 157. These maps/threads provide “[t]he capability to mine/gather the data associated with the digital content 320.” Id. ¶ 162 (emphasis added). Thus, Kobata’s super-distribution threads are stored as part of digital content 320 and provide a history of digital asset transfers—the “history of identities of computer devices that manipulated and/or forwarded the digital content 320.” Id. ¶ 152. However, the threads do not detect when such a transfer occurs. Nor do the cited paragraphs of the Golbeck Declaration relied upon by Petitioner explain how Kobata detects a transfer of the digital asset as required by claim 1. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65 (discussing tracking, but not addressing detecting); see also Pet. 37 (citing same). Thus, Kobata does not support Petitioner’s assertion that Kobata’s super-distribution allows the “digital content [to] be tracked when transferred” as asserted by Petitioner. See Pet. 36.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Kobata discloses an asset identification embedded within an “other portion” of the digital asset that does not include digital content, as required by claim 1. Petitioner asserts that ID portion 418 does not include digital content. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 60–65). The cited portions of the Golbeck Declaration, however, do not address the recited other portion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 57, 60–65 (discussing the form of the digital content and tracking digital content, but not discussing the recited other portion). Paragraph 53 of the declaration does, noting that “the digital content package 320 can include a viewer module 416, the digital content data 410, the ID portion 418, the local digital rights database 412, [and] the personal rights manager module 414,” and summarily stating that “[t]hus, Kobata’s system includes . . . at least one other portion that does not include digital content.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 208–09). The cited portions of Kobata, however, do not address the components cited by Petitioner’s declarant. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 208–09 (discussing loading a file onto the recipient’s computer device, decrypting the file, and running the file, but not discussing the contents of ID portion 418). As Dr. Golbeck does not direct us to any other evidence to support her assertions, we accord her testimony little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Based on the Specification and the prior art of record, we find Petitioner’s definition reasonable and, for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,606,856 - Panasonic Avionics Corp. v. Linksmart Wireless Technology, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 8, 2019 · IPR2019-00043 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Panasonic’s rehearing request and left in place its denial of institution because the cited art did not teach the claimed redirection server.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“rehearing of our Decision Denying Institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent RE46,459 (the ’459 patent) entered as Paper 7 (“Decision” or “Dec.”) on May 14, 2019. See Paper 8 (“Req. Reh’g.”). When rehearing a decision on institution, the Board reviews the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable judgment is made in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. U.S., 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“redirecting a packet, i.e., one in which the NAS removes the request for the Subscriber’s packet and places it in a new packet to be sent to server 14. Req. Reh’g. 5–6 (citing Pet. 71, 78). Petitioner refers to this second technique as an address-replacement approach. Id. at 5. According to Petitioner, Malkin’s address replacement approach is consistent with our analysis that the ’459 patent requires modifying a request to access a destination on the network by changing the requested destination. Id. at 5–6 (citing Dec. 18). Petitioner overlooks that our analysis of Malkin is independent of how server 14 is accessed. Our Decision states, “When the NAS detects a user attempting unauthorized access, Malkin routes the user’s request to redirection server 14 within ISP 16.” Dec. 17 (emphasis added). We also stated that “Malkin either allows network access for authorized user requests or blocks network access for unauthorized user requests, but it does not redirect a request to another location on the network.” Id. (emphasis added). As our construction requires that the claimed redirection server perform some function other than allowing or blocking access to a network, i.e., redirecting the user to a network location that is different from the requested network location, we concluded that Malkin, which blocks access to the network, does not disclose the claimed redirection server. Id. at 17–18.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“redirection server” means “a server operable to control network access by applying the following actions: block, allow, direct.” Pet. 15. We explained that a prior panel of the Board construed “redirection server” as “requiring[ing] some sort of redirection functionality” and that “blocking and allowing are ‘further’ functions of the redirection server.” Dec. 10. We agreed that “‘redirection’ requires the server perform a redirection function as distinguished from merely blocking or allowing user access, i.e., there must be some form of redirection of the user’s request.” Id. at 11. We phrased the construction of “redirection server” to mean a server that “at least must be capable of redirecting a user to a network location that is different from the network location in the user’s request.” Dec. 12. Our slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“the user’s rule set correlated to a temporarily assigned network address. As an initial matter, we note that the Petition (i) cites Abraham as disclosing denying or allowing transmission of IP packets and (ii) argues it would have been obvious to augment the network server’s ability to deny or allow packets, as disclosed by Abraham, with Malkin’s packet redirection technique, thereby making Abraham’s network server a redirection server. Pet. 30–31. According to Petitioner, “it would have been obvious for Abraham’s network server to redirect packets that are blocked, as described by Malkin.” Id. at 32. As discussed above, because Malkin’s packet redirection technique is a blocking technique that fails to disclose Abraham does not alter our decision to deny institution. See also Dec. 18 (“As we are persuaded that Petitioner has not demonstrated the references disclose a redirection server as that term is properly construed within the meaning of the challenged claims, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood that it will prevail on its challenge to any of the claims.”).” slip op. at 6
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness - Teradata Operations, Inc. v. Berkley*ieorRehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 27, 2019 · CBM2019-00015 · APJ Josiah C Cocks · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Teradata’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied for claims 1, 3–5, and 10–26 because it had not shown the patent was not a technological invention.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“A request for rehearing is not an opportunity for a petitioner to respond to an institution decision to make a better argument for any given matter than that which was initially presented in a petition. Notably, in now challenging the claim construction of the above-noted term, Petitioner does not cite or identify any portion of the Petition that was misapprehended or overlooked. Instead, Petitioner seeks to make a better case through citation to portions of the record that were not previously relied upon. For instance, Petition now points to content of the prosecution history (Ex. 1002) pertaining to claim amendments made during prosecution that Petitioner would have us infer as demonstrating that the applicant “knew” how to limit the claims to calculations “in the RDBMS” but chose not to. Req. Reh’g 2– 3. That was not an argument on which Petitioner previously relied, and thus was not an argument that we could have misapprehended or overlooked. Moreover, in now making the argument, Petitioner seemingly discounts the plain language of the claims in specifically reciting “using” the RDBMS “to independently calculate” marginal values of profit. Ex. 1001, 30:61–63. We have considered Petitioner’s arguments pertaining to claim construction, but are not persuaded that they demonstrate that we misapprehended or overlooked content of the Petition that warrants a change in the claim constructions that were identified in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Petition, and which we found unpersuasive. As we explained in the Institution Decision, we were not satisfied that “bulk citations” to large portions of the record provided “meaningful explanation that the prior art shows an RDBMS, itself, that is performing the necessary profit calculations.” Inst. Dec. 13–14. We were not persuaded that Petitioner’s assessment of the prior art showed adequately that the “requirements of limitation 1[d] pertaining to independent profitability calculation by an RDBMS are non-novel or obvious.” Id. at 15. Although Petitioner may disagree with our determination in that respect, mere disagreement is not the proper basis for rehearing.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“For purposes of deciding whether to institute trial, we adopted the Patent Owner’s construction of claim element 1[d(i)] (id. at 8), concluding that the construction was supported by “(1) the ’521 patent itself [see, e.g., id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1001, 10:42–47)]; (2) the testimony of Patent Owner’s declarant [see, e.g., id. at 14–16 (referencing Ex. 2001, ¶¶ 58–67, 75, 81– 85)]; and (3) the prosecution history of the ’521 patent [see, e.g., id. at 16” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Page 12 of the Petition, however, makes no connection between Blain’s teachings and the pertinent claim limitation 1[d]. There is no reasonable inference from the above-noted content of page 12 of the Petition that paragraph 85 of Dr. Weber’s testimony should be evaluated in the context of viewing an RDBMS as independently performing profitability calculations. We simply were not persuaded that the Petition and the applicable portions of Dr. Weber’s testimony cited therein, including paragraph 85, adequately addressed the features required by claims limitation 1[d].” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,596,521
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.