• Sony Corporation v. Imation CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 27, 2016 · IPR2015-01556 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by Yen; the obviousness ground over Chang, Yen, and either specification was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “preposition “from.” The standard linguistic usage of the verb “protrude” takes the prepositions “from” and “over;” it would not be standard usage to talk about “protruding in” or “protruding on.” See Ex. 3004; see also Protrude, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protrude (for examples of standard usage, last visited Dec. 21, 2016). Therefore, ascribing certain requirements based on the use of a preposition may not be appropriate when only certain prepositions have common usage. As such, we are not persuaded that “from” in the claim limitation “protruding from” must take on the special meaning advocated by Patent Owner. We continue to determine that the “host connector protruding from the housing” 8 encompasses “the host connector and the housing as different parts of a single integral structure.” See Dec. 9.” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Additionally, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated that USB interface contact 300 (“host connector”), with sub-parts gold contacts 111, jut piece 112, and base 113, protrudes from casings 113A, 114 (“housing”). See Pet. 22–24. As we explain supra in Section II.A.1, the host connector and the housing can meet the language of claim 1, “host connector protruding from the housing,” even if they are different parts of a single integral structure, i.e., attached, connected, joined, or molded to one another. Petitioner and Mr. Berg persuasively demonstrate that Figs. 11–13 of Yen show USB interface contact 300, comprising gold pieces 111, jut piece 112, and base 113, protruding, or jutting out, from casings 113A, 114. See Ex. 1003, Figs. 11–13; Pet. 22–24; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55, 58. We see no meaningful difference in the relationship between the host connector and the housing in these figures and that in Figure 5 of the ’038 patent, which the ’038 patent characterizes as the host connector protruding from housing. Compare Ex. 1001, 8:47–51, Fig. 5, with Ex. 1003, Figs. 11–13. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that Yen would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations recited in claim 1 and that claim 1 is anticipated by Yen.” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication not establishedDecided for patent owner

    “First, a copyright indication alone is not necessarily evidence of publication or that a document was distributed or had public accessibility. Although the year indicated in a copyright notice is intended to be “the year of first publication of the work” (37 C.F.R. § 401(b)), it details nothing about accessibility before the critical date. See In re Lister, 583 F.3d 1307, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (detailing that even when the Copyright Office issues a certificate of registration for a manuscript, that does not mean that the manuscript was listed in a catalog or index that would have permitted an interested researcher to learn of its existence and locate it for inspection); see also Microsoft Co. v. Corel Software, LLC, Case IPR2016-01083, slip op. at 13–14 (PTAB December 1, 2016) (Paper 14) (“The copyright notice, alone, however, sheds virtually no light on whether the document was publicly accessible as of that date, therefore additional evidence is typically necessary to support a showing of public accessibility”). Additionally, although the SD Specification details “[c]onditions for publication” (Ex. 1007, 2), we have no information about its dissemination, i.e., was it publically disseminated, or reproduced for some subset of a private group. As well, reproduction is prohibited without permission of “SD Group” (id.), which does not offer evidence of public accessibility. 27 Similarly, the MMC Specification discloses that “[n]o part of this publication may be transmitted, reproduced or distributed in any way,” without prior written consent (Ex. 1008, 2), which does not offer proof of sufficient accessibility to interested parties. Petitioner also asserts that the ’038 Patent admits that the MMC and SD standards, as well as cards following those standards, were in the prior art. Pet. 16–17. The acknowledgement that the standards were known, or even well-known, does not provide evidence regarding the specific documents relied upon by Petitioner. As provided in 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), a ground of unpatentability in an inter partes review can be made “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The general knowledge of systems or methods, or their public use, cannot serve as a basis. As such, the general citation of the standards existing in the prior art can not substantiate the publication status of the specifically cited MMC Specification and SD Specification documents.” slip op. at 27

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied

    “At oral hearing, when the issue of printed publication status was raised, counsel for Petitioner raised the issues discussed above. Tr. 28–34. Petitioner also argues that without the MMC Specification and the SD Specification, “the obviousness position would still prevail.” Id. at 35. Petitioner asserts that “there’s no question that those skilled in the art understand that if you’re talking about a specific size, that there was no choice once those MMC or SD cards or their associated specs are known to be prior art, that it’d be obvious to modify the size to however you want.” Id. We are not persuaded, however, that dropping the Specification references would not be viewed as altering the grounds upon which trial instituted. Per In re Magnum Oil Tools, 829 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that could be interpreted as “borrowing the rationale for combining the first set of references [and] equally apply[ing it] to the second set of references” (id. at 1378), without providing Patent Owner its due process rights with respect to the “new” ground. We respectfully decline to entertain such a new position at this stage of the proceeding.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 6,908,038 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,908,038
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01226 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable under § 103 over the specified combinations; the motion to amend with substitute claims 29–50 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Id. at 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Id. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Id. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Id.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Similar to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd 1–2.” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. James R. Bress, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience with call monitoring or recording.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Michael A. Caloyannides, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be 21 adopted. Ex. 2013 ¶ 24. We adopt Mr. Bress’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “We determine that Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the combinations of (1) Schrage and Koga; (2) Schrage, Koga, Creamer, and Peterson; (3) Schrage, Koga, and Glowny; (4) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, Peterson, and Creamer; and (5) Schrage, Koga, Glowny, and Ostrover. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). We also credit Mr. Bress’ testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the cited references. Ex. 1003. For these reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Schrage and Koga would have conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitations recited in claim 15. We also determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that the subject matter of claim 15 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Schrage and Koga as combined in the manner proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,135,115 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,135,115
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2015-01222 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 and 13–15 are unpatentable as obvious over Strubbe and Rae; claims 12 and 16–20 were not shown unpatentable because the petition did not tie the connection-fee limitation to those references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between American Securities and Petitioner 9 were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Third, we found ambiguous and unreliable statements made by a non- lawyer CEO during settlement negotiations covering “ongoing intellectual property disputes” (see Discovery Motion 1) failed to demonstrate that American Securities funded and controlled the instant proceeding. Discovery Order 9; see Exs. 2006, 2011.” slip op. at 9

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. One portion of the Specification cited by Patent Owner details: “[t]he list of items displayed for the inmate may be selected based upon data stored in the inmate's profile on JAMS database 115.” Ex. 1001, 3:61–63 (emphasis added). The conditional nature of the selection need not be incorporated into claim 8. In addition, the instant claim language would also read on a display of all items, with indications of 18 availability with each item for the inmate, such that all items would be displayed instead of Patent Owner’s truncated listing. As such, we conclude that Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the language of claim 8 is overly narrow and is not adopted in the analysis that follows.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in a call center technology particularly computer telephony integration and in telephone networks in general.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Ivan Zatkovich, proposes that Petitioner’s definition be adopted. Ex. 2012 ¶ 31. As such, we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,750,486 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,750,486
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01225 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–8 are unpatentable as obvious over the instituted combinations; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable over Magee, Nussbaum, and Juang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Inst. Dec. 18. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8; Inst. Dec. 18.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “In the Decision to Institute, after considering constructions of SCF rating proffered by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determined that the ’663 patent did not provide the requisite clarity, deliberateness, and precision necessary to define the term SCF rating, and we declined to read the limitation from the preferred embodiment into claim 1. Inst. Dec. 10–14 (citing Paulsen, 30 F.3d at 1480; Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enter., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Am. Academy of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184). We credited the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Homayoon Beigi, D. Eng’g Sci., that “[t]here is no definition of ‘Suspicious Call Finder (SCF) rating’ that would be immediately known to a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Inst. Dec. 14 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶ 45).” slip op. at 24

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownOther

    “data from said selected portion of speech.” In the Decision to Institute, we determined that “prosody” needed express construction, although neither party had proffered an express construction for the term. Inst. Dec. 15–16. We identified an express definition of “prosody” in the Specification: The word “prosody” (defined at Princeton University as ‘the patterns of stress and intonation in a language’) is often used in the field of affective computing (computing relating to emotion) to refer to emotion-indicating characteristics of speech.” Ex. 1001, 6:36–40; see Inst. Dec. 15 (quoting Ex. 1001, 6:36–40). Based on that definition, we preliminarily construed “prosody data” to mean “data reflecting emotion-indicating characteristics of speech” in our Decision to Institute and further determined that, on the partially-developed, pre-institution record, that the prosody construction was consistent with the plain language of claim 8. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Beigi, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent or related field (or comparable industry experience), as well as at least 1–3 years of academic or industry experience in speech processing.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 23; see Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition without contesting it. PO Resp. 10. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1007–1011), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner and Patent Owner.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,663 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,663
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01219 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–32 are unpatentable as obvious over Rae, Sulmar, and Falcone; the motion to amend with substitute claims 33–57 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree that Patent Owner has introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question the accuracy of GTL’s identification of the real parties-in-interest in its Petition. First, in its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner makes conclusory assertions, without explaining how any evidence of record supports Patent Owner’s contentions, such as that the “private equity firm American Securities . . . has the ability to control GTL in general and in [this] proceeding[].” PO Resp. 41 (citing generally Exs. 2002–2011, Discovery Motion, Prelim. Resp.); id. at 41–43 (asserting that its evidence “reasonably brings into question the accuracy” of Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in its Petition).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Similar to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly” slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The subject limitation of claim 1 is “determining whether a charge for message service using message service communication protocol can be billed to the cellular telephone.” As we discussed in the Institution Decision, the Specification discusses two determinations, and we are not persuaded that both determinations must be satisfied to satisfy claim 1. See Dec. 16–17. As understood at the time of the invention of the ’118 Patent, and as understood today, the physical cellular phone may receive a message or call, but does not receive a charge, per se. Patent Owner has not provided any examples of mobile devices that “do their own billing,” i.e., that internally bill a charge and/or process payments, and we are unaware of such mobile devices. Rather, the charges are handled by a mobile carrier, and can follow a myriad of billing arrangements, which can be purely business agreements, subject to negotiation and not subject to technical requirements. We credit the testimony of Dr. Forys, providing that the ’118 Patent focuses on the ability to charge the phone when a message is transmitted to it, not on the ability of the phone to receive a message. Ex. 1026 ¶¶ 25–28. Furthermore, we determine that focusing on technical capabilities of the called party’s phone 21 ignores the role of the carrier, which is the essential entity in the billing process. As such, we maintain our interpretation of the “determining” step of claim 1, and apply it in our consideration of the ground below.” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 30; see Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 30). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bradley O. Walton, contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and at least three years of academic or industry experience in telecommunications 25 systems.” Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 37. We determine the differences in the declarants’ assertions to be negligible and that both definitions are consistent with the ’118 Patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,118 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,118
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · IPR2015-01221 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated combinations of Falcone, Jiang, Bangor, and Apple.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther

    “Patent Owner also filed a Motion to Amend (Paper 27), to which Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 32) and Patent Owner filed a Reply (Paper 34). Subsequently, however, Patent Owner filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend (Paper 46), making consideration of those papers pertaining to claim amendments moot.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Leonard J. Forys, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a [Bachelor of Science] B.S. degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field as well as at least 3–5 years of academic or industry experience in communications systems, or comparable industry experience.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 34; see Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 34). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Bradley O. Walton, contends one of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or an equivalent field and at least three years of academic or industry experience in telecommunications systems.” Ex. 2012 ¶¶ 38. We determine the differences in the declarants’ assertions to be negligible, that both definitions are consistent with the ’068 Patent and the referenced prior art, and we adopt Dr. Forys’ definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of the analysis below.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,489,068 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,489,068
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 7, 2016 · PGR2015-00013 · APJ Kevin F Turner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 7–19 were held unpatentable as obvious; claims 5, 6, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Reinhold, Walters, and Dudovich.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “We found Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8–10; Dec. 8. First, we found the mere existence of the relationship between Petitioner and a parent company (American Securities) to be insufficient to demonstrate a real party-in-interest issue. Discovery Order 8. In addition, we determined the evidence did not show that American Securities and Petitioner have “corporate boundaries that were inextricably intertwined.” Discovery Order 8. Second, we found the existence of common directors or employees between American Securities and Petitioner to be insufficient to show a real party-in-interest issue, unless the directors controlled or participated in the filing of the proceedings. Discovery Order 9. We found insufficient evidence that common officers between the American Securities and Petitioner were involved in the filing of the present proceedings or had the ability to direct the filing of the present proceedings. Discovery Order 9. Nor did we find persuasive evidence that American Securities provided any prior art to Petitioner in the instant proceedings. Discovery Order 9.” slip op. at 11

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsNot reached
  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s motion to exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014 and 1015 is denied. As Patent Owner points out, 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) indicates that “[a]rguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.” We are not persuaded, however, that Petitioner is attempting to incorporate by reference; Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 are cited by Petitioner’s declarant, not incorporated by reference. If Petitioner’s declarant or the cited exhibits contained arguments not made in a paper, we would likely ignore such arguments. In this instance, Petitioner is making of record the documents cited, which is generally laudatory, so that a reader can determine for herself that cited facts are supported. We are not persuaded that the cited exhibits are “irrelevant.” Additionally, we find no support for Patent Owner’s contention that exhibits must be cited by “papers,” and not other exhibits. Many exhibits, such as declarations, prior art references, and deposition transcripts, cite to other exhibits in normal trial practice. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibits 1013, 1014, and 1015 is denied.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Frank Koperda, testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2–5 years of academic or industry experience in the telecommunications industry. Ex. 1002 ¶ 19; see Pet. 5 (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, largely adopts Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art, adding that such artisans should have experience “in the generation of billing statements or cost accounting reports.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 33. We are not persuaded that such billing or accounting experience is necessary “to fully understand the ’280 patent disclosure.” Id. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1003, 1007, 1006, 1008), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by Petitioner’s declarant, where Patent Owner’s declarant acknowledges that his analysis would be the same under Mr. Koperda’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2012 ¶ 34.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,855,280 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,855,280
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 30, 2016 · IPR2015-01220 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 and 12–17 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 9–11, and 18–26 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. 11 For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 11

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “For these additional reasons, we determine that, even without excluding Exhibits 2006 and 2011, the preponderance of evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude Exhibits 2006 and 2011 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “construed also undermine Petitioner’s position. “In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is ‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). On the other hand, a preamble, however, “generally is not limiting when the claim body describes a structurally complete invention such that deletion of the preamble phrase does not affect the structure or steps of the claimed invention.” Id. at 809. The only limitations in the body of independent claim 22—the two biometric sensors—are not structurally complete in themselves. Rather, the telephone handset is required to describe a structurally complete invention that includes two biometric sensors. Without the telephone handset as an element, the claim merely recites two unconnected biometric sensors without any structure—a structurally incomplete invention. Furthermore, the telephone handset recited in the preamble does not duplicate the biosensor limitations in the body of the claim. Thus, we conclude that the telephone handset is essential structure and is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. This weighs toward a determination that independent claim 22 requires a telephone handset. See Catalina Mktg. Int’l, 389 F.3d at 808–09.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner, however, does not acknowledge that both Dr. Beigi and Dr. Caloyannides include electrical engineering as a field of study in the respective level of ordinary skill. Thus, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s statement that Dr. Beigi’s proposed “academic requirements do not provide this background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 34 (Dr. Beigi opining that “one of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) would have a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or an equivalent or related field”). Because both experts specify electrical engineering as an academic field of study but only Dr. Beigi specifies computer science, we understand the disagreement of the parties to be whether computer science is a relevant academic field of study. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s contention that “bachelor’s level degree in electrical engineering or physics is necessary to understand both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric systems.” See PO Resp. 7. Contrary to Patent Owner’s contention, the invention as claimed recites elements and functions using a high-level of abstraction with little, if any, technical detail regarding “the data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention.” For example, independent claims 1 and 12 recite methods that include broad functional steps of authorizing, continuously monitoring, verifying, and monitoring a biometric training with 30 little, if any, technical detail. Similarly, the call processing system recited in independent claim 13 and the biometric telephone handset recited in independent claim 22 recite elements that perform broad functions with little, if any, technical detail. Thus, the plain language of the claims undermines Patent Owner’s contention that an understanding of “both the various data/network communication aspects of the claimed invention as well as the mathematics underlying biometric system” necessitate an electrical engineering or physics academic degree.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,494,061 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,494,061
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 29, 2016 · PGR2015-00014 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4–10, and 13–18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 19–25 were not shown unpatentable because the prior art did not teach the required video-communication eligibility query and confirmation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, Patent Owner has not introduced evidence reasonably bringing into question Petitioner’s identification of the real party-in-interest in this proceeding. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not support a determination that American Securities had a role in funding or controlling this proceeding, or could have exercised control over this proceeding. For these reasons, we determine that a preponderance of the evidence does not show that American Securities is an unnamed real party-in-interest in this proceeding. As such, we determine that Petitioner’s real party-in-interest identification at the time of filing the Petition remains valid.” slip op. at 16

  • ExcludeDenied

    “Similarly to the posture of Petitioner’s First Motion to Exclude, the current situation does not require us to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Second Motion to Exclude. See Discovery Order, 13 (indicating that Patent Owner’s evidence was insufficient, “even without excluding Patent Owner’s supporting evidence”). According to Petitioner, the two declarations filed by Patent Owner in support of its Motion for Additional Discovery allegedly recount statements made by Petitioner’s CEO during settlement discussions between Patent Owner and GTL. Mot. Exc. 2nd, 1–2.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner’s declarant, Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D., testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science (or an equivalent field), as well as at least 2–3 years of academic or industry experience in software development (or comparable industry experience). Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; see Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30) (asserting level of ordinary skill in the art). Dr. Jeffay indicates that he bases his opinion of the level of ordinary skill on the disclosure of the ’525 patent. Ex. 1002 ¶ 30. Patent Owner’s declarant, Mr. Stuart J. Lipoff, adopts Dr. Jeffay’s level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2014 ¶ 36. Having reviewed the prior art asserted in this proceeding (see, e.g., Exs. 1009, 1010, 1012), we also adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art employed by both Petitioner’s declarant and Patent Owner’s declarant.” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Furthermore, we credit Dr. Jeffay’s testimony that a skilled artisan would have been able to incorporate Virtanen’s voice-to-video switching in Torgersrud’s computer system. Ex. 1002 ¶ 44. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony relied on “sophistication of software packages to manage audio and video streams on personal devices available in 2014” and identified specific “Software Development Kits” available to develop software for mobile devices. Id. Moreover, he testified that an undergraduate student would have been able to implement the necessary modification and testified that he was aware of a specific example of such a system that one of his undergraduate students developed in 1995. Id. We weigh Dr. Jeffay’s testimony more heavily than Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. Dr. Jeffay’s testimony is based on specific reasons, whereas Mr. Lipoff’s testimony lacks sufficient supporting analysis and is based on a faulty premise that a central communications processing system would need to be inserted in Torgersrud’s system. Compare Ex. 1002 ¶ 44, with Ex. 2014 ¶¶ 63–64 (“I believe a skilled artisan would need to be familiar with communication processing systems of a controlled facility, like in” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 8,929,525 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,929,525
• Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*link CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Sep 12, 2016 · IPR2016-00267 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing only insofar as it addressed the request, but denied rehearing overall and maintained denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “public mode,” including specific citations, namely “Ex. 1005 at 16:24-31; 18:2- 8.” See Reh’g Req. 7. Those citations fall short, however, because they were not provided in the Petition. The closest citation provided by Petitioner is “Ex. 1005 at 16:54-17:3,” at page 41 of the Petition. The Board could not have overlooked a detailed explanation or analysis not presented in the Petition. A rehearing request is not a supplemental petition. The petition, itself, must identify “specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). “The Board may exclude or give no weight to the evidence where a party has failed to state its relevance or to identify specific portions of the evidence that support the challenge.” Id. Petitioner has the responsibility to identify and explain in the petition specific evidence that supports its arguments. We must make our determination regarding institution based on what the Petition actually presented and not what it could have reasonably contained had it been reformulated. In re 5 Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., No. 2015-1300, 2016 WL 3974202, at *10 (Fed. Cir. July 25, 2016) (holding that the Board is not “free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners that could have been, but were not, raised by the petitioner during an IPR”). slip op. at 5

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

    “The Board is tasked with determining whether a petitioner would be reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable in view of the petition filed. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). It is the Petitioner, in its Petition, that must demonstrate whether there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under the assert ground. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 4

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “As such, it is not clear how Petitioner could have relied solely on the public mode of Bulriss when neither the public nor the privacy modes are acknowledged in the Petition. If an understanding of the public mode of Bulriss was important in the context of Petitioner’s case against the claims of the ’816 Patent, no such import or discussion of the public mode was provided in the Petition. The Board is tasked with determining whether a petitioner would be reasonably likely to prevail in demonstrating that at least one of the challenged claims is not patentable in view of the petition filed. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). It is the Petitioner, in its Petition, that must demonstrate whether there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under the assert ground. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 4

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

    “communications” limitation and its proffered motivation to combine Bulriss and Hesse. Reh’g Req. 11–14. We have previously discussed and decided these issues in the Denial of Institution Decision, and we are not persuaded of error in their consideration. Dec. 8–9, 12. As we discussed, the motivation to combine cannot come from the subject patent itself, such that even if “[t]he motivation to combine is therefore explicit in the references” (Reh’g Req. 14), it does not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Bulriss and Hesse provided in the Petition, as discussed in the rest of the Decision. Likewise, the new citations to Bulriss (Reh’g Req. 12), not found in the Petition, cannot be used to show that we misapprehended the arguments supplied in the Petition or that we used unreasonable judgment in determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to provide scheduling of video visits in the context of Bulriss, in view of Hesse, for the reasons supplied by Petitioner. Dec. 12. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence, nor that the Board abused its discretion 6 in determining that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that at least one of the challenged claims of the ’816 Patent is unpatentable.” slip op. at 6

  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,256,816

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.