- Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00748 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89). Even considering Petitioner’s new theory, we find it unpersuasive because Petitioner does not explain adequately how the “determining a luminance value” recitation is met. Per Petitioner, Gallagher measures the coefficient of luminous intensity, but Petitioner does not identify a “luminance value” as recited in claim 15. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies that the coefficient of luminous intensity is not a luminance value: “As is well established, coefficient of luminous intensity—which is what Gallagher calculates—is a measurement of retroreflectivity (usually expressed in units of candelas, or millicandelas, per lux per square meter, i.e., cd/lx/m2), not luminance (usually expressed in candelas per square meter, i.e., cd/m2). Ex. 2023 ¶ 91. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does not contest this testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 ¶ 35. Thus, Petitioner’s new theory is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,335,255 - Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00037 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the asserted combinations taught the claimed limitations or provide a persuasive reason to combine Jiang and Chen.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“algorithm on Chen’s plurality of clusters of processors, the Petition contends that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e) in disclosing assigning an initial score to each of the initial nodes of a prefix tree, then using these initial scores to determine, via pruning, whether to continue processing branches connected to the nodes. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–64); see id. at 31–44. We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain how Jiang’s pruning would be implemented in Chen’s multiple clusters of processors to generate an initial score for an audio sample, and to use the initial score “to determine whether to continue processing” as required by limitations 1(d) and 1(e). In contending that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e), the Petition quotes from Jiang’s description of its pruning technique:” slip op. at 20
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“in the Petition, and is therefore untimely. PO Sur-Reply 4. We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition relies on Jiang alone to teach limitations 1(d) and 1(e), as discussed above. Petitioner’s contention that Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated across Chen’s processors for performing limitations 1(d) and 1(e) is not found in the Petition. Rather, as discussed above, the Petition describes how Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated for performing limitations 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c). Petitioner’s new theory in Reply is untimely. A “[p]etitioner 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.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) 73;2 see also Intelligent Bio-” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“inconsistent with Jiang’s teaching that pruning is performed by comparing a score at a particular node to the maximum score for other corresponding nodes in the prefix tree. Ex. 1004, 8:55–64. We rely on Dr. Anderson’s testimony, that a parallel implementation of Jiang’s algorithm “requires extensive communication between computational components” and that “all four memories 104(a)-(d) would contain necessary information” to perform limitations 1(d) and 1(e), in finding that performing Jiang’s algorithm using Chen’s clusters of processors would have required the processors to access data in all of the cluster memories 104a-d in order to determine the scores of the corresponding nodes of the tree. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 29, 51.” slip op. at 32
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“We do not need to resolve this dispute, because even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, Petitioner has not shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable. We apply Petitioner’s definition that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition, and that additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,971,140 not shown unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,971,140 - Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01222 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a distinct server and network switch box in the asserted combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the ’863 patent” and “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” recited by claim 1 “should be understood to recite that a server is ‘configured with a controller’ and that it is the server that is ‘in communication with a plurality of network devices.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. Inst. Dec. 9. “Patent Owner does not concede that Petitioner’s construction [of a ‘server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of under any construction so it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve this IPR.” PO Resp. 14 n.1. Based on the full record, we determine that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” does not require express interpretation to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find that the cited portions of Ahopelto describe a GRPS GSN or GGSN connects to data networks, such as an inter-operator backbone IP network, X.25 network, and IP network. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, Fig. 1. Based on the portions relied upon by Petitioner, we find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that its GGSN is “a server” and a separate and distinct “network switch box.” Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (“Ahopelto does not describe any details about a GGSN’s hardware/software”). We also find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that a GGSN has separate and distinct functionalities (1) for receiving a packet and determining the protocol of the encapsulated packet is separate and (2) for connecting to data networks. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 2008 ¶ 39 (“Ahopelto never mentions the term ‘server functionality’ or the term ‘routing functionality.’”).” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s declarant also opines that the asserted server functionality includes controlling where a packet is routed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that Ahopelto’s GGSN exercises control over how a packet is routed, based on the protocol type (the ‘server functionality’ herein for simplicity of reference).”), ¶ 78 (“[T]he GGSN’s server functionality would exercise the disclosed control (the platform implementing the GGSN).”); Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4 (Petitioner’s declarant answering “Yes” and “Routing is about where to send a packet,” in response to whether it was correct that “deciding where to send a packet is an essential part of routing”). According to Petitioner’s declarant, the asserted server functionality includes, or overlaps with, aspects of a “GGSN routing process.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1013, 14:1– 3; Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4. Petitioner’s testimonial evidence does not show a clear distinction between the asserted server and routing functionalities to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a server functionality separate and distinct from a routing functionality in Ahopelto’s GGSN.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,863 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,982,863 - Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2023 · IPR2022-00069 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11, 12, 26, and 27 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because Petitioner did not establish motivation to modify Obhan to deny network attach.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Ex. 1005, 6:5–16 (emphasis added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 95. However, even assuming that Petitioner is correct, and denying network attach is one of a finite number of ways to deny access, this is not sufficient to show that denying access would be accomplished through denying network attach in Obhan’s system. In other words, Petitioner’s proposed rationale is too general, and is untethered from the disclosure in Obhan.” slip op. at 27
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther
“registered subscribers, or renders it impossible to modify Obhan’s system to deny attach of nonregistered users”). Petitioner also attempts to broaden Obhan’s disclosure to include unregistered subscribers by arguing that Obhan’s discussion of registered subscribers is not in the context of denying access, but rather, is only in the context of monitoring network load. See Reply 22; Tr. 16:6–11, 20:18–20. However, Petitioner fails to provide persuasive support that Obhan is concerned with unregistered subscribers in any context. Petitioner cites to deposition testimony from Mr. Obhan and Dr. Pachamanov (Reply 21), purportedly supporting that the Obhan reference is not limited to any particular type of subscriber, but we do not find the cited testimony persuasive, particularly in light of what the Obhan reference discloses. Although Petitioner is correct that Obhan does not expressly state that it is only concerned with registered subscribers (Reply 21), we are not persuaded that silence implies that unregistered subscribers are a consideration in Obhan. See International Bus. Machines Corp. v. Iancu, 759 F. App’x 1002, 1010–12 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2019) (unpublished) (concluding that the fact that a reference was silent on an issue “would not alone support a finding that there was no user authentication action in this scenario . . . . Silence in that sense would not by itself suffice for the Petitioner to meet its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was no user authentication action in this scenario. Nor would that burden be met merely by adding a finding that [the patent owner] did not prove the opposite, i.e., a finding of ‘the absence of sufficient evidence showing the provision or validation of a set credentials at the partner site’ in this scenario.”) Rather, Obhan’s disclosure (described in detail above in Section III.D.1) supports that Obhan is concerned with registered subscribers. For example, Obhan tracks spectrum usage in real-time, measuring both real-time usage of active subscribers, and potential usage of inactive subscribers that have registered with the network. Ex. 1005, 2:38–42. This information is delivered to an ACB, and is used in order to enforce operating rules over each corridor, such as limiting access to certain classes of subscribers or certain services during particular operating periods. Id. at 2:62–3:39, 5:32–65, 6:5–16, 11:35–50, 14:13–20, 14:64–15:3, 15:45–16:22, Figs. 9A, 9B. In other words, in Obhan’s system, registered subscribers create the actual and potential demand that contributes to limiting access to subscribers. Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that unregistered subscribers are a consideration in denying access in Obhan. Therefore, based on Obhan’s disclosure and the record before us, we agree with Patent Owner, and find persuasive Dr. Pachamov’s testimony, that Obhan’s system presumes that network attach has occurred. See PO Resp. 42–43; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 93–95.” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed6 proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Paper 9, 17–18. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art or offer an alternative. See generally PO Resp. Nothing in the full record persuades us that our preliminary finding as to the level of ordinary skill in the art was incorrect. Accordingly, we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The only term for which parties propose construction is the term “register,” which is not recited in any of the challenged claims. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any terms, including “register,” for purposes of this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 9,253,637 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,253,637 - Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01213 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 12, 13, and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable because neither asserted combination taught routing each net in a subset in isolation of the other nets.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“the time the ’614 patent was filed. Pet. 11. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: a person with “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or electrical and computer engineering or equivalent and two or more years of experience with CMOS VLSI (very large-scale integration) circuit design, electronic design 2 Patent Owner does not identify any secondary considerations to be considered. Accordingly, we do not consider this aspect of the obviousness analysis at this stage of the proceeding. automation for VLSI, or ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit) design fields.” Id. at 11; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70 (Robins Declaration). Petitioner notes that this assessment was presented to the district court by Patent Owner, but that Petitioner has also argued for a higher level of skill in the art. Id. Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Friedman, adopt this assessment. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 25–26). We accept the assessment offered by the parties as it is supported by both declarants and is consistent with the ’614 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The term “global nets” is construed as “nets not contained wholly within any single tile on the chip.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1009, 2); Resp. 8; Ex. 2015, 3. The phrase “[e]ach of said global nets within said second subset routed by one of said threads in isolation of said second subset’s other global nets but in respect of the routes of said subset of global nets” is construed as “[e]ach global net of the second subset is independently routed by a respective thread, without reference to the routing of any other net within the second subset, and the resulting routing does not conflict with routings of the first subset of global nets.” Resp. 7; Ex. 2001, 13; Ex. 2020 ¶ 26; Reply 3–4. We apply the same standard that is used to construe a patent claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), and construe each claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the patent, and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent, as articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019)). “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We do not expressly construe any claim terms beyond the extent necessary in our discussion of the parties’ arguments below.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s citations to Mehrotra illustrate that the nets in a first area are processed in isolation from a second area that is processed in parallel with the first area, but do not teach that each net within a given area is processed in isolation of others within that same area. Petitioner’s reasoning is based on the parallel processing of distinct areas. Petitioner attributes the lack of any need for communication between processors as resulting from the “separation distance” between “areas 92 and 96.” Thus, the benefits flowing from Mehrotra’s parallel processing; i.e., improving the speed of routing, are limited to processing areas in parallel, and are not taught to apply to nets within a single processing area. Furthermore, Dr. Robins’ testimony illustrates that the nets within a given area are processed sequentially, not in parallel. Dr. Robins states that the global nets are assigned to the processor for that area when that processor is available, i.e., sequential processing of global nets within an area. Ex. 1003 ¶ 154 (“Mehrotra therefore discloses issuing each global net of a subset to [a] thread (i.e., a processor) because the thread is available”); Ex. 1019 ¶ 26 (“Area 92 contains two traces [that are] assigned to a single processor[, which] would perform routing for a first one of the nets and would then become available to route the second trace”). Dr. Robins clearly states that the second trace is processed “after routing the preceding trace.” Id. Thus, Dr. Robins’ testimony concerning how traces (nets) within a subset are processed in Mehrotra (sequentially) contradicts Petitioner’s reasoning why Mehrotra’s traces would be routed in isolation (to gain the advantages of parallel processing). We further note that Petitioner characterizes Mehrotra’s subset as “those traces and subtraces contained in 92 and 96.” Pet. 35–36. Each of areas 92 and 96 are shown to have multiple traces or subtraces therein. Ex. 1004, Fig. 9. Thus, Petitioner’s subset requires plural traces (nets) within each area, and it is not sufficient that those traces in 92 are routed in isolation from those in 96 if the traces within each area are not routed in isolation from those in the same area (nor does Petitioner argue otherwise). In view of the foregoing, Petitioner’s argument based on Mehrotra’s” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 8,234,614 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,234,614 - Intel Corporation v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.No claims unpatentablePTAB · May 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00327 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–6 and 9–15 were not shown unpatentable because neither proposed combination with Brands-Chaum made the challenged claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The differences between these two definitions are minor. The main distinction we see is that Patent Owner views a POSA as having specific experience in cryptography and digital rights management, whereas Petitioner views a POSA as having more general experience in software engineering and data communications. Yet there is significant overlap between these definitions because Petitioner also states that a POSA “would have understood the basics of digital communication devices and protocols and how to apply basic cryptographic concepts.” Pet. 24–25. We are persuaded that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’809 patent. For example, the ’809 patent refers to the problem of “unauthorized copying and pirating” in the context of “digital rights management (DRM) systems and methods.” Ex. 1001, 1:49, 59–61. Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill omits “digital rights management.” We also note that, according to Mr. Williams, Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill is essentially identical to the level of skill adopted by the ITC in the related ITC investigation:” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes constructions for the following three terms: “certificate,” “[provide/providing] the secret to the second device,” and “predetermined time.” Pet. 13–14. Patent Owner does not dispute these constructions but does propose a separate construction for the term “secret.” PO Resp. 47–50. We provided a preliminary construction for “predetermined time” at institution, but the parties do not dispute this term post-institution, so we need not construe it now. Dec. 12–13. We also need not construe the term “secret” because we find that Petitioner has not shown the challenged claims to be unpatentable for reasons unrelated to the meaning of “secret.” Thus, we need not construe any terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (internal quotation omitted).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“The problem with the proposed combination is that the express teachings of Brands-Chaum require timing a rapid single bit, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Menezes’s challenge-response has multiple bits. Patent Owner correctly points out that in Brands-Chaum, “the essential element of a distance-bounding protocol . . . consists of a single-bit challenge and rapid single-bit response.” PO Resp. 22–23 (quoting Ex. 1007, 345) (emphasis added). Not only that, but “each bit of the prover P is to be sent out immediately after receiving a bit from the verifier V.” Id. at 25 (quoting Ex. 1007, 345, 348). Brands-Chaum then repeatedly emphasizes, in each of its five different algorithms, that one device sends a single bit to another device “immediately after he receives” the first bit. Ex. 1007, 347, 348, 349, 350, 356, 357. Brands-Chaum’s repeated italicization of “immediately” underscores the importance to Brands-Chaum of rapidly sending back a single bit right after receiving one. See id.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner’s argument was a new argument first raised at the hearing. The Reply cites none of the above testimony from Dr. Karp and makes no such argument. Thus, we dismiss this argument as untimely. See Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 884 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Unless it chose to exercise its waiver authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b), the Board was obligated to dismiss Dell’s untimely argument given that the untimely argument in this case was raised for the first time during oral argument.”). But even if we were to consider it, our opinion would not change because Dr. Karp’s testimony contradicts the express disclosure of Brands-Chaum. See Ex. 2019, 166:8–167:9. As we have repeatedly emphasized, Brands-Chaum requires that “[t]he essential element of a distance-bounding protocol . . . consists of a single-bit challenge and rapid single-bit response.” Ex. 1007, 345 (emphasis added). Dr. Karp cites no evidence for his testimony that in a less harsh environment, multiple bits could be used in place of Brands-Chaum’s single bit. This testimony is entitled to little weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,436,809 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,436,809 - Fantasia Trading LLC D/B/A Ankerdirect v. Cognipower, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00067 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 18, 25, 27, 30–33, 37, 38, 40, 43–46, 49, 52–55, and 58–61 not shown unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Mr. Bohannon testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have “B.S. degree, or its equivalent, in electrical engineering or physics and approximately two years of practical experience working with switching regulators and analog/mixed signal circuit design, or an equivalent 1 US 2011/0096573 A1, published Apr. 28, 2011 (Ex. 1005). 2 US 6,466,461 B2, issued Oct. 15, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 3 US 5,498,995, issued Mar. 12, 1996 (Ex. 1007). combination of academic study and work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Mr. Sandler uses the same definition for his analysis. Ex. 2001 ¶ 19. We are persuaded that Messrs. Bohannon’s and Sandler’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate for the subject matter of the ’031 patent, and, for this Decision, we adopt that description.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We determine that we do not need to construe any claim term expressly for this Decision. 4 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). III. ANALYSIS OF ASSERTED GROUNDS “In an inter partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “[T]he burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove unpatentable those issued claims that were actually challenged in the petition for review and for which the Board instituted review.” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified prior art references. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“In determining whether there would have been a motivation to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, it is insufficient to simply conclude the combination would have been obvious without identifying any 4 We authorized the parties to file additional briefs regarding the meaning of the term “frequency” and appreciate the parties’ briefing of that issue. Papers 50–54. We have nevertheless determined that we do no need to construe that term for this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“identify Zhu’s purported bias circuit. Inst. Dec. 30. Although we did not decline institution on that basis, we do agree with Patent Owner that, in the Petition, Petitioner should have identified the purported bias circuit in Zhu that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve. Further, in our Institution Decision, we instructed Petitioner to identify Zhu’s purported bias circuit during the trial. Id. As set forth below, during trial, Mr. Bohannon, upon whose testimony Petitioner relies to prove a motivation to combine, gave inconsistent testimony regarding that bias circuit. That inconsistent testimony, coupled with Mr. Bohannon’s initial failure to identify Zhu’s bias circuit, diminishes the weight we accord to Mr. Bohannon’s testimony regarding motivations to combine. As mentioned, the Petition does not identify the bias circuit in Zhu that it claims an ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to improve. Pet. 12–13. In his original declaration, Mr. Bohannon also does not identify that bias circuit. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–58. Zhu itself does not show or discuss any bias circuit. Ex. 2015 ¶ 118. Thus, Mr. Bohannon’s original testimony regarding motivations to combine lacks specificity: all four rationales set forth by Mr. Bohannon are directed to improving a bias circuit in Zhu, which Mr. Bohannon did not identify. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56–58; Pet. 12–13. As discussed, in our Institution Decision, we instructed Petitioner to identify the bias circuit in Zhu that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve. Inst. Dec. 30. During subsequent cross-examination, Mr. Bohannon was asked to identify that bias circuit and identified the wire in Figure 3 of Zhu from Vout up to VCC at controller 320 as Zhu’s bias circuit. Ex. 2016, 186:4–6 (“The bias circuit was just a wire from Vout or trace out of circuit, probably a trace out of PCB going from Vout to 320.”). After Mr. Sandler testified that there was no evidence that a wire would have the problems that Mr. Bohannon identified Zhu’s bias circuit as having (Ex. 2015 ¶ 125), Mr. Bohannon changed his identification of Zhu’s bias circuit (Ex. 1025 ¶ 27), now identifying the elements highlighted in red in the annotated portion of Figure 3 of Zhu, reproduced below: Ex. 1025 ¶ 27. The above annotated figure additionally identifies diode 313, capacitor 314, and the wire extending from Vcc to Vout as Zhu’s bias circuit. Id. This latter identification is not only inconsistent with Mr. Bohannon’s cross examination testimony, it is also inconsistent with his original declaration testimony. In his original declaration, Mr. Bohannon illustrated the combination of Zhu and Mao as follows: Ex. 1003 ¶ 57. Mr. Bohannon described this combined structure as showing “the bias circuitry of FIG. 9 of Mao has been attached in place of the bias circuitry in Zhu, which merely powered the secondary controller using the output voltage.” Id. ¶ 58 (emphasis added). As can be seen from the above figure, diode 313 and capacitor 314 from Zhu Figure 2 were not replaced in this combined structure. Thus, Mr. Bohannon’s reply testimony that diode 313 and capacitor 314 are part of what he originally referred to as Zhu’s bias circuit is inconsistent with his original declaration testimony. This inconsistent testimony, coupled with the initial failure by Mr.” slip op. at 19
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Bohannon to identify Zhu’s bias circuit, diminishes the weight we accord to Mr. Bohannon’s testimony regarding motivations to combine. The proper identification of Zhu’s bias circuit is not a minor issue: all four rationales for Petitioner’s motivation to combine are directed to improving Zhu’s bias circuit. Pet. 12. Further, although, over Patent Owner’s objections, we gave Petitioner the opportunity to identify the bias circuit in Zhu to be improved during trial, we do not permit Petitioner and Mr. Bohannon to identify that bias circuit during cross examination and then completely change that identification after Patent Owner argued the initial identification was flawed. A “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.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Consolidated Trial Practice Guide”), 73;5 see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. e- Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”). To be clear, we do not hold the issues concerning Petitioner’s and Mr. Bohannon’s identification of the bias circuit in Zhu to be dispositive, but those issues do diminish the weight we accord Mr. Bohannon’s testimony regarding motivations to combine, which undermines Petitioner’s showing regarding those motivations.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS RE47,031 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness - Fantasia Trading LLC D/B/A Ankerdirect v. Cognipower, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 11, 2022 · IPR2021-00071 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 18–23, 25, 30–31, 34–36, 41–43, 45, and 48–51 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner did not prove motivation to combine for any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted). Mr. Bohannon testifies that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a “B.S. degree, or its equivalent, in electrical engineering or physics and approximately two years of practical experience working with switching regulators and analog/mixed signal circuit design, or an equivalent combination of academic study and work experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 43. Mr. Sandler uses the same definition for his analysis. Ex. 2015 ¶ 19. We are persuaded that Messrs. Bohannon’s and Sandler’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is appropriate for the subject matter of the ’713 patent, and we adopt that description.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Patent Owner requests that we construe the term “regulate” in claims 18 and 48. PO Resp. 13. We determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term for this Decision. 6 Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). III. ANALYSIS OF ASSERTED GROUNDS “In an inter partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “[T]he burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove unpatentable those issued claims that were actually challenged in the petition for review and for which the Board instituted review.” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified prior art references. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“In determining whether there would have been a motivation to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, it is insufficient to simply conclude the combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of 6 We authorized the parties to file additional briefs regarding the meaning of the term “frequency” and appreciate the parties’ briefing of that issue. Papers 50–54. We have nevertheless determined that we do no need to construe that term for this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- BurdenFwd all claims patentableNot shown unpatentable
“III. ANALYSIS OF ASSERTED GROUNDS “In an inter partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). “[T]he burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove unpatentable those issued claims that were actually challenged in the petition for review and for which the Board instituted review.” Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016). To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner must articulate a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined or modified prior art references. In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“In determining whether there would have been a motivation to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, it is insufficient to simply conclude the combination would have been obvious without identifying any reason why a person of skill in the art would have made the combination.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of 6 We authorized the parties to file additional briefs regarding the meaning of the term “frequency” and appreciate the parties’ briefing of that issue. Papers 50–54. We have nevertheless determined that we do no need to construe that term for this Decision. prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc'ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Further, it is Petitioner’s “burden to burden to demonstrate both ‘that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Intelligent Bio–Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge, Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367- 68 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). As set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make any of the combinations set forth in its asserted grounds. Thus, Petitioner has not proven that any challenged claim would be unpatentable. Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1381.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“First, Mr. Bohannon’s testimony, upon which Petitioner’s analysis for this rationale to combine relies, is unspecific and conclusory, and thus is entitled to little weight. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–60. Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, s.a.r.l., 859 F.3d 1014, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Board is “not required to credit [a party’s] expert evidence simply because [the party] offered it”); TQ Delta, LLC v. CISCO Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This court’s opinions have repeatedly recognized that conclusory expert testimony is inadequate to support an obviousness determination on substantial evidence review.”); MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Regents of Univ. of Min v. AGA Med. Corp., 717 F.3d 929, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Koito Mfg. Co. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC, 381 F.3d 1142, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) (“Each petition . . . must include . . . [a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested including material facts.”). As discussed in Section III.A.4.b. above, Mr. Bohannon’s testimony regarding Zhu’s bias circuit was initially unspecific and subsequently contradictory. Further, as set forth below, Mr. Bohannon’s additional testimony for this rationale is conclusory and thus entitled to little weight. In his original declaration, Mr. Bohannon testifies that a passage in Mao (Ex. 1006, 1:50–55) teaches that a secondary bias circuit such as the one disclosed in Zhu can be disadvantageously vulnerable to output voltage fluctuations. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–60. The cited passage reads “Although changing the polarity of the bias winding Tb may somewhat reduce the variation range of the voltage bias Vbias in some cases, the reduction is usually not significant, considering that both input voltage and output voltage can change in a typical dc-dc converter.” Ex. 1006, 1:50–55. This passage does not, on its face, teach that a secondary bias circuit, such as the one disclosed in Zhu, can be disadvantageously vulnerable to output voltage fluctuations. Id. And Mr. Bohannon does not explain why that passage teaches that the circuit disclosed in Zhu is vulnerable to such fluctuations. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 58–60; Ex. 1025 ¶¶ 39–45. Second, the record indicates Zhu’s circuit would not be vulnerable to” slip op. at 24
Patent outcomesUS RE47,713 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness - Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 13, 2021 · IPR2020-00511 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–12, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable under the three § 103 grounds because the combinations did not establish the encrypted-frame limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not address, expressly, the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Nielson, however, applies Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in his Declaration (Ex. 2009 ¶ 34) and does not indicate that he does otherwise in his Second Declaration (see generally Ex. 2024). In our Institution Decision, we found that Petitioner’s proposal was consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record and we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s unopposed position. Inst. Dec. 10 (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)). As neither party challenges our preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, we see no reason to disturb that finding. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video encryption and cryptography or . . . a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video encryption and cryptography.” See Inst. Dec. 9–10 (finding the same).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner contends that “the challenged claims are invalid under their plain and ordinary (‘P&O’) meaning.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 99). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner raised the meaning of two claim terms—“user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Prelim. Resp. 40–44, 46–48. In the Institution Decision, we addressed each term to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy presented, and we found, in each instance, that Petitioner’s mapping of the prior art to these limitations of the claims was sufficient on the record presented at the time. See Inst. Dec. 12– 15 (discussing the construction of the terms), 22–28 (discussing limitation 1[a], which includes “user encryption key”), 28–31 (discussing limitation 1[b], which includes “content encryption key”). In particular, on the preliminary record, we found that “Chen’s master key Kw teaches the recited ‘user encryption key’” (id. at 28) and “Chen’s work key Kw teaches the recited ‘content encryption key’” (id. at 30). In the Response, Patent Owner does not propose a construction for any claim term or contest our preliminary findings regarding limitations 1[a] and 1[b]. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, we maintain and reaffirm our preliminary determinations regarding the meaning of the recited “user encryption key” and “content encryption key.” Dec. 12–15. Additionally, we need not construe other claim terms to resolve the present controversy before us.6” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“techniques, and standards in the industry regarding the same in an attempt to explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen at the time of the ’920 patent. As discussed herein, the weight of the evidence is very closely balanced. Fundamentally, however, it is Petitioner’s burden to establish how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Chen and the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333. And, as we find herein based on the full record developed during trial, Petitioner does not establish that the combined teachings of Chen and Grab-333 would have met limitation 1[c]. Below, we walk through the parties’ arguments and evidence, starting with the Petition, and then we discuss our findings regarding Chen in light of the full trial record.” slip op. at 24
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part
“To begin, 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) specifies, in relevant part, that “[a] sur-reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding reply and may not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-examination of any reply witness.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). The Consolidated TPG repeats the above-quoted language of the rule and also explains that [s]ur-replies should only respond to arguments made in reply briefs, comment on reply declaration testimony, or point to cross-examination testimony. As noted above, a sur-reply may address the institution decision if necessary to respond to the petitioner’s reply. This sur-reply practice essentially replaces the previous practice of filing observations on cross-examination testimony. Consolidated TPG at 73–74. Accordingly, Rule 42.23(b) provides a blanket prohibition on a patentee filing exhibits with a sur-reply, as Patent Owner has done here.” slip op. at 54
Patent outcomesUS 9,184,920 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,184,920
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.