- Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01054 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4 and 11 are unpatentable over Grotmol and Hickman; claims 5 and 7 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 21 and 24–26 are unpatentable; claims 22 and 23 are not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art, 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness in this proceeding. would have [had] at least: (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Considering the subject matter of the ’974 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’974 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “connection” Claim 7 recites, in pertinent part, that “a first connection is generated” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMixed
“c) Conclusion—Claim 7 After consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record, we” slip op. at 52
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“7 We recognize that our conclusion here differs from the preliminary determination made in our Preliminary Guidance. After considering the full trial record, including Patent Owner’s MTA Reply, Petitioner’s MTA Sur-reply, Patent Owner’s Sur-sur-reply, and the arguments made at the oral hearing, we find that Petitioner has satisfied its burden of showing that this claim limitation would have been obvious over the Grotmol-Hickman combination. When issuing our Preliminary Guidance, we emphasized that the views expressed therein were “preliminary,” “subject to change upon consideration of the complete record,” and “not binding on the Board when reaching a final written decision.” See Prelim. Guid. 3.” slip op. at 99
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,974 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,452,974 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2023-01055 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 6–8, and 10–18 are unpatentable; cancellation of claims 4, 5, and 9 is granted, and proposed substitute claims 21–29 are unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyOther
“Accordingly, we maintain our determination at the institution stage” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part
“f) Conclusion—Proposed Substitute Claim 21 For the reasons given, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates by a” slip op. at 111
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“g) Conclusion—Disclaimed Claim 1 For the reasons given above and the reasons presented by Petitioner,” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“4. Claim 6 Claim 6 depends from claim 3 and recites the following:” slip op. at 73
Patent outcomesUS 11,238,344 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,238,344 - Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 45–47, 51, 56, 57, 59, 60, 68, and 69 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over Buibas and Sinyavskiy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). The reasonable likelihood standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading,” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). For the reasons provided below and based on the record before us, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Considering the subject matter of the ’474 patent, the background technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, except as noted above, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that, at this stage of the proceeding, “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps the prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25. Patent Owner does not propose a claim construction at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). In response, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because “there is no articulated reasoning regarding what specific element of claim 45 Buibas . . . does not disclose.” Prelim. Resp. 19–20. In other words, according to Patent Owner, Petitioner “failed to perform a proper obviousness analysis because Petitioner has failed to identify anything in the claims that Buibas lacks disclosure of for Ground 1A.” Id. at 20. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has set forth sufficient reasoning to support a motivation to combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy for purposes of institution, as well as sufficient reasoning to support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is flawed because it fails to identify what is lacking in Buibas’s disclosure. To the contrary, Petitioner explains that Buibas “broadly suggests” that its spiking neural networks “can be partitioned into modules for different tasks or behaviors” but “discloses little detail about the partitioning,” and that Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks would fill in these details. See Pet. 12–13, 14–15, 24. Petitioner also relies on Sinyavskiy’s more detailed disclosures concerning partitioning the network to satisfy limitations [45.1] and [45.6]. Id. at 23–27, 35. Thus, Petitioner has sufficiently identified what is missing in Buibas (a detailed disclosure of partitioning spiking neural networks) and how that missing information is provided by Sinyavskiy (by disclosure of specific techniques for partitioning spiking networks).” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,663,474 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00614 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–18, 21–24, and 27–29 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground because the evidence did not establish all limitations or a reason to combine the cited teachings.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Claim Construction In an inter partes review, we construe a claim term “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. [§] 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under that standard, the words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim term needs specific construction beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 14; PO Resp. 10. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to expressly construe any claim term.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Here, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “at least a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, or a closely related field, along with at least two years of experience in the design of entertaining lighting systems, and the design and use of LEDs.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had “2 to 4 years’ experience in electrical engineering/design of film and television lighting systems, including the design and use of LED lights, combined with two to three years of work experience as a set lighting technician in television and/or motion picture industry.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2047 ¶¶ 16–17; Ex. 2100 ¶¶ 156–161). Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. (“Regardless of which definition of a POSITA is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA because it is consistent with the prior art’s demonstration of the skill level at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Kit and Katzir. Petitioner argues that “Katzir further discloses daylight and tungsten temperature ranges within the claimed temperature ranges.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 53, 54, Figs. 5A, 5B). Petitioner relies on the Holmes Declaration to show that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 102). Mr. Holmes testifies that [b]oth Kit and Katzir teach using LEDs of various colors in a fluorescent tube form factor, like a T8 or T12 fluorescent tube. Katzir also discloses various LED array layouts that a POSITA would have a looked to when designing an LED tube lighting like that disclosed in Kit. A POSITA would have had strong motivation to look to Katzir to design an LED array to be retrofit in a fluorescent tube form factor. Ex. 1003 ¶ 102 (internal citations omitted). As discussed above, however, the cited passages of Kit describe a light with LEDs that produces a single, consistent temperature of warm white, commercial white, or cool white. Ex. 1004, 3:28–36, 22:9–25. Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Holmes sufficiently explains why a POSITA would have modified Kit to include Katzir’s particular layout that includes both cool white LEDs and warm white LEDs. See Pet. 19, 24; Ex. 1003 ¶ 102; In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (instructing that we must articulate a reason why a POSITA would combine the prior art references). We identified the aforementioned deficiencies for this asserted challenge in the Decision on Institution. DI 21–23. Petitioner did not address those deficiencies in the Reply. See generally Reply; Tr. 6:16–7:10. Thus, based on the entire record developed at trial, and for the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not shown that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kit, Ianiro, Ducharme, and Katzir.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther
“Petitioner asserts that Mr. Holmes cited Hasnain’s heat dissipation techniques. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49). Paragraph 490 of Exhibit 1003 relates to Ducharme, not Hasnain, and thus, does not support Petitioner’s argument. Although paragraphs 41 to 49 of Exhibit 1049 span more than seven pages, other than the single citation in the Reply, Petitioner does not discuss any of the testimony presented therein. We, thus, do not consider this portion of the Holmes Supplemental Declaration. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(a)(3). Furthermore, we would not be persuaded by Mr. Holmes’ testimony even if we considered it. For example, Mr. Holmes testifies that Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure “a variety of heat dissipating techniques are disclosed by Hasnain, any one of which could readily be used in a T12 form factor LED light, as expressly recognized by Hasnain.” Ex. 1049 ¶ 46. We disagree with Mr. Holmes that Hasnain teaches enclosing its heat-dissipating structure in a fluorescent light tube. Hasnain teaches “a replacement LED light source for fluorescent tube 22 [that] plug[s] into the same connectors and operate[s] from the voltage patterns generated by the ballasts.” Ex. 1008, 3:23–26. Hasnain also teaches that “the replacement LED light source has a plurality of LEDs mounted on a heat-dissipating substrate that has a width that is less than or equal to the diameter of the fluorescent tube that the light source is designed to replace.” Id. at 5:52–56. Thus, Hasnain teaches that its LED light fits into, and connects with, an existing structure that previously held a fluorescent light tube. Id. at 2:50–56, 3:23–26, 4:58–64, 5:52–56, Figs. 1A, 4. As discussed above, however, Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure is not enclosed in a tubular housing in order to dissipate heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with the existing structure that a fluorescent light tube is inserted into. Id. at 2:50–56, 4:23–28, 4:51–64, Figs. 1A, 3, 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,566,895 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,566,895 - Quasar Science LLC v. Colt International Clothing, Inc. D/B/A Colt LedNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 7, 2024 · IPR2023-00613 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–14, 16–19, 21–24, and 26–31 were not shown unpatentable over either asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not identify any specific instance in which the differences between the parties’ respective descriptions of the level of ordinary skill in the art impacts the analysis or conclusions of either party, or either party’s declarant, in this case. See id. In fact, Patent Owner acknowledges that any differences between the parties’ respective descriptions do not impact the conclusions in this case. Id. at 9 (“Regardless of which definition . . . is applied, the conclusion(s) would be the same.”). Therefore, to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Fred Holmes, and is consistent with the asserted prior art. Ex. 1003 ¶ 32.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 13; PO Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require an express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes regarding the asserted grounds of unpatentability. See Sections II.D.1, II.E.1.” slip op. at 8
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner’s assertion that Hasnain’s LED light emits at least 1000 lumens requires distributing LEDs on a heat-dissipating structure that transfers heat to the surrounding air or via thermal contact with another existing structure. Id. at 4:23–28, 4:51–5:6, Figs. 3, 4; see Ex. 2080 ¶¶ 49, 5 Figure 4 shows heat-dissipating structure 59, not heat-dissipating structure 47. Ex. 1008, Fig. 4. But Hasnain describes those structures similarly. Id. at 4:51–5:6. 66. Petitioner, though, does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would work when combined with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See Pet. 62–63; Pet. Reply 10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 490; Ex. 1049 ¶¶ 41–49. In particular, Petitioner does not explain how Hasnain’s heat- dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat to the surrounding air when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Petitioner also does not explain how Hasnain’s heat-dissipating structure would dissipate sufficient heat via thermal contact with another existing structure when enclosed in Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Furthermore, Petitioner does not propose combining Ducharme and Hasnain so that Hasnain’s heatdissipating structure is in thermal contact with Ducharme’s tubular housing. See id. Thus, Petitioner does not show sufficiently how the proposed combination of Ducharme and Hasnain was supposed to work. See Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Board nowhere clearly explained, or cited evidence showing, how the combination of the two references was supposed to work.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to achieve high lumen output, we determine that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the specific cited teachings of Ducharme and Hasnain.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,411,582 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,411,582 - PTAB · Sep 17, 2024 · IPR2024-00617 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 9–14, 16–18, and 20 on all asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, when instituting an inter partes review, we “will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Here, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims on all the grounds of unpatentability in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“’142 patent’s earliest claimed priority date “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bryan Bergeron. Ex. 1012 ¶ 36. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 2. We adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction In an inter partes review proceeding, a patent claim is construed using the same standard used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 7; Prelim. Resp. 10. We determine that no claim terms require express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Douglas’s system includes Wager’s workforce management interface. Pet. 50–52 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 138–141). Petitioner presents evidence that doing so would have been obvious because “Douglas’s system is used to treat patients with a variety of needs,” and Wager’s interface “would have helped ensure that the assigned physician was equipped, in terms of skill set, to treat the patient.” Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:36–7:4; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 138, 140). Petitioner also presents evidence that combining the cited teachings of Douglas and Wager “would have . . . helped ensure that the assigned physician had the capacity to effectively treat the patient.” Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 141). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that it would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Douglas and Wager for several reasons. Prelim. Resp. 29–37. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that combining Douglas’s system with Wager’s interface is redundant because Douglas’s “patients are only subscribed to the system because they are already assigned to a physician.” Id. at 29–30. On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. Even if a patient already saw a physician, the evidence of record indicates that Wager’s interface would have improved Douglas’s system by allowing the case administrator to assign a physician that has the appropriate skills and capacity to treat the patient. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 140–141.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,151,142 - Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00618 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the asserted obviousness combinations teach compiling provider data without client input to generate a score.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for a person of ordinary skill in the art, which appears to be consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the disclosure of the ’812 patent.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We finally consider the disputed limitation “without input from the clients.” Petitioner argues that data inputted by a provider, and not the client, “is without input” from the client. See Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 141). Patent Owner distinguishes between entered data and compiled data. See Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (“[T]he element in claim 16 does not require data entry without input from the patients. Instead, . . . claim 16 recites that ‘instructions are executed by the processor to: . . . compile data’”). Patent Owner thus argues that the negative limitation “without” excludes client input from the compiled data to generate a score, not the entered data as a whole. See id. In other words, both providers and clients may input data, but the score is generated from data collected from the providers, not the clients. We agree with Patent Owner’s position—that the compiled data used to generate a score includes client data received from the providers and excludes (is without) input from the clients—as consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation. This reading gives meaning to the express limitation “without input from the clients.” See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“the use of a term within the claim [may provide] a firm basis for construing the term”). We next consider whether this interpretation is consistent with the intrinsic evidence.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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). Furthermore, Petitioner must explain with particularity how the prior art would have rendered the challenged claims unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”). slip op. at 6
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“In sum, none of Petitioner’s citations to Douglas appear to address compiling data without input from the client to generate a score. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Bergeron, does not provide any further explanation of why one of ordinary skill in the art would compile data without input from the client to generate a score, nor a reason to modify Douglas to do so. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 141–142, 90–91. Instead, Dr. Bergeron merely provides the conclusion mirrored in the Petition. See Ex. 1012 ¶ 141. Finally, Petitioner does not rely on Klotsche, Virginia, or Wager for the disputed limitation “without input from the client.” See Pet. 32 (discussing Klotsche), 33 (discussing Virginia), and 58–59 (discussing Wager). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not established that the asserted art teaches or suggests all of the claim elements and limitations of claim 16. Accordingly, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 16, and dependent claim 17, would have been obvious over Douglas, Klotsche, and Virginia or Douglas, Klotsche, Virginia, and Wager.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,061,812 - PTAB · Sep 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00616 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). We may institute inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). After considering the Petition and the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1, 2, 4–17, 19, and 20 of the ’554 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that one of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the challenged claims, as of the earliest claimed priority date, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare field as well as 1–2 years of experience with health information technology, including specific 3 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations. experience with computer-based systems for recording, tracking, and analyzing patient health information.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 36). At this time, Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 2. On this record and for the purposes of institution, we determine Petitioner’s proposed level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’554 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that “[n]one of the claim terms of the Challenged Claims require an explicit construction to resolve the current grounds.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner[] that, for purposes of this Preliminary Response only, all terms of the ’554 patent have their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 10. At this stage of the proceeding and based on the current record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because no such construction is necessary to determine whether to institute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent the parties’ arguments implicate claim construction, these are discussed below with reference to limitation 1[b].4” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Fifth, Patent Owner argues that “Douglas teaches away from Wager by teaching against accomplishing its goals in an in-person [clinical] setting like the one to which Wager is directed.” Id. at 27–28 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 4, 5, 11, 13). Patent Owner argues that Douglas’s system is designed for remote monitoring of patients to avoid the costs and inconvenience of in-person programs. Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 1:29–35, 2:5–7). On this record, we do not agree that Douglas teaches away from a combination with Wager’s interface simply because the interfaces may be used in different environments. Moreover, Douglas teaches alternatives to remote monitoring, including in-person visits. See Ex. 1002, 11:1–2 (“The system also accepts additional patient data obtained during office visits.”); see In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”).” slip op. at 24
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,144,554 - PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00565 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1 and 5–8, on all asserted grounds, after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Li, Wu, and Paunikar challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“X. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed in showing that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable on the following challenges to patentability, including: Claims 1 and 5–8 as unpatentable over Li, Paunikar, and Wu. XI. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes review of the ’845 patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial.” slip op. at 52
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinarily skilled artisan) as having “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking, including experience with the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols, or a related field,” and noting that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003, Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 62). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of an ordinarily skilled artisan. Prelim. Resp. 19. The level of ordinary skill in the art may be evidenced by the references themselves. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). As the level of skill agreed to by the parties appears commensurate with the subject matter of the ’845 patent and the references, we apply this description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- 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) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“On this record, Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. First, the evidence of record indicates that Li and Wu are analogous art. Pet. 70; Ex. 1003, Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 201. For example, the ’845 patent, Li, and Wu are all directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, computer networking and routing data packets. Ex. 1001, 1:17–21, Ex. 1003 ¶ 201; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1039, 9. Second, the evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings of Li and Wu. Pet. 78–79 (citing Ex. 1003, Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 207). As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Wu’s teaching that an IPv6 destination address includes a destination port number. Pet. 79–80 (citing Ex. 1003, Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶ 211). Even if Patent Owner is correct that Li and Wu address the interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 networks from different perspectives, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Wu’s destination port number could be incorporated into the unused padding in Li’s IPv6 destination address. Pet. 76–80; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 199–212. On this record, Petitioner shows sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had reason to combine the cited teachings of Li and Wu.” slip op. at 51
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,451,845 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2024 · IPR2024-00561 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1 and 6 on both § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that each challenged claim would be shown obvious over either asserted reference combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating the exercise of discretion to deny institution under Section 325(d), the Board uses the following two-part framework: (1) determining whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, determining whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. Med-El Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential) (“Advanced Bionics”). The art presented in the Petition is not “substantially the same” as the art previously presented to the Office when there is a material difference between them. Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trs. of Purdue Univ., IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). At this time, we determine that it is unnecessary to construe any claim term expressly to resolve the disputed issues before us.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Furthermore, on the current record, we are also unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner’s reasons for combining Wainner and Bocci are “purely hindsight based.” Prelim. Resp. 27–28. In particular, we are unpersuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that “[n]one of the purported motivations to combine Wainner and Bocci even address the specific depicted in annotated Figure 2 of Wainner in the Petition, Petitioner relies on Wainner, and not Bocci, for teaching two separate multi-segment pseudo-wires sharing a link. See Pet. 28–31; Ex. 1030, Fig. 2. As Petitioner clarifies, “Wainner does disclose these elements,” wherein “Bocci would have supplemented Wainner’s disclosures.” Pet. 24. Petitioner contends that “Wainner itself explains that it teaches a ‘particular embodiment of a method for providing point-to-multipoint multihop distribution using Pseudo[-]wires (PWs)’ that avoids scalability problems.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶ 6). Further, Petitioner contends that Bocci also “explains that implementing multi-segment pseudo-wires provides scalability benefits.” Id. (citing Ex. 1031, 3–4). Based on this current record, we find availing Petitioner’s contention that “both Wainner and Bocci contain teachings, suggestions, and motivations to combine the references together.” Id. (citing Ex. 1040 ¶ 62). On this preliminary record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the combination of Wainner in view of Bocci teaches “setting up a second pseudo-wire between said input router and a second output router [], wherein the second pseudo-wire comprises said first link and a third link set up between said intermediate router and said second output router,” wherein “said first link being shared by the first and second pseudo-wires,” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, based on this preliminary record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Warner and Bocci.” slip op. at 28
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,130,775
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.