- Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 20, 2019 · IPR2018-01039 · APJ Scott R Boalick · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing on printed-publication accessibility, finding a reasonable likelihood Dougherty was publicly accessible before the critical date, and remanded for consideration of institution on obviousness.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“We grant Petitioner’s request for rehearing. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has submitted evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent, and, thus Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the reference qualifies as a printed publication. In view of this holding, we remand to the merits panel to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“reasonable likelihood that a reference is a printed publication. If trial is instituted, the petitioner will ultimately have the burden to prove that the reference is a printed publication by a preponderance of the evidence. We conclude that, based on the totality of the evidence currently in the record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that the Dougherty reference is a printed publication that was publicly accessible before the critical date of the challenged patent. V. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Request for Rehearing is granted to address the POP review issue; and FURTHER ORDERED that the matter is remanded to the original merits panel for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including consideration of whether to institute a trial on the merits of the obviousness ground presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 21
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“institution, and based on the totality of the evidence to date, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication. The face of Dougherty bears a copyright date of 1990, a printing date of November 1992, and an ISBN date of 8/94. Ex. 1004, 4. In addition, the book is a textbook from an established publisher, O’Reilly, and a well-known book series. See Canon Br. 11–12 (quoting https://www.oreilly.com/about/history.html). As Canon asserts, the cover of Publisher’s Weekly stated (with respect to this series) that “The Internet Was Built With O’Reilly Books.” Id. Altogether, this is sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood that Dougherty is a printed publication that a publisher made available to the pertinent public prior to the October 1995 critical date.” slip op. at 19
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 5,806,062 - Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 19, 2019 · CBM2018-00037 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable under § 101; the motion to amend is granted for proposed substitute claims 16–23, which were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“does not remove the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. See Pet. 52–53; Reply 12; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that it “does not matter to [the conclusion that the claim is directed to an abstract idea] whether the information here is information about real investments,” as “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract” (citation omitted)). Further, the last two clauses of claim 1 that recite how the transaction is viewed from the perspectives of the participant and vendor system, respectively, merely express the “non-physical result” of the information transfers and confirm the abstract nature of the claimed subject matter. See Pet. 57. In fact, as to the vendor system clause, the Specification indicates that the vendor system transfers information no differently than it would for any other transaction. See Ex. 1001, col. 7, ll. 15–18 (disclosing that vendor system 208 responds to purchase request 216 “in the same way that it would respond to any other purchase request from a consumer that presents a credit card”).” slip op. at 35
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“Our conclusion also is supported by the ’087 patent’s description of” slip op. at 41
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
- 101 substituteMixed
“transaction, . . . display[ing] an order message indicating the completion of the purchase transaction to the respective participant.” Mot., App’x A, 4. An example in which a judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application is when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Flook, 437 U.S. at 590 (holding that a step of adjusting an alarm limit variable was “post-solution activity”). Displaying an order message after the facilitated transaction has been completed amounts to insignificant post-solution activity, and does not support a conclusion that the abstract idea of claim 16 is integrated into a practical application.” slip op. at 75
Patent outcomesUS 7,134,087 unpatentable§ 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Berkheimer · EnfishPatents in suitUS 7,134,087 - PTAB · Nov 20, 2019 · CBM2018-00006 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · CBM · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact its final written decision that claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), “[t]he burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, opposition, or a reply.”” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“on this particular issue is timely. Patent Owner has argued that “the institution should never have occurred” and that institution should have been denied outright. Id. However, our Decision on Institution (Paper 19, “Dec.”) was entered on June 22, 2018. Any request for rehearing of our determinations regarding the forum selection clause in that Decision should have been filed 14 days from the entry of that decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)(1). As we noted in the FWD, after institution of the covered business method patent review (“CBM review”), the parties did not present any additional evidence or arguments regarding the forum selection clause issue. FWD 8 (“In the post-institution briefing, neither party has added arguments or evidence to the record regarding this issue.”). Indeed, the Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 28, “PO Resp.”) and Sur-Reply (Paper 39, “Sur.”) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 31, “Reply”) did not discuss forum selection. For completeness and clarity of the record, we reiterated our” slip op. at 3
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“be instructive, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion, that decision has not been designated precedential. Moreover, taking into consideration the discussion by the panel in Global Tel*Link, we are not persuaded that our determination misapprehended or overlooked any arguments or evidence in” slip op. at 9
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner
“the abstract idea. Nonetheless, we are not persuaded that this is clear error or deprived Patent Owner of the opportunity to defend its position. Indeed, Patent Owner does not explain why the “rules for playing a bonus wagering game” is substantively different from “allowing bonus wagers in a wagering game,” or, more importantly, the basis for Patent Owner’s contention that this is a “fundamental change.” See Reh’g Req. 11.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityPatents in suitUS 7,451,987 - Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 7, 2019 · IPR2018-00972 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Strub-based grounds; the Board grants the motion to amend, allowing substitute claims 15–28.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the “combined” limitation encompasses the multitrack embodiment of the ’307 patent. Both independent claims 1 and 12 recite that the “local audio data” is “combined with said remotely recorded audio data.” In view of Mr. DeFilippis’s testimony that the “combined” limitation allows “multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files” (Ex. 2086 ¶ 18), we determine that claims 1 and 12 do not require the claimed “local audio data” and “remotely recorded audio data” to be derived from the same source. Furthermore, every occurrence of the term “combined” in the ’307 patent specification outside of the claims refers to the combination of audio into a multi-track file. See,e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:12–14 (“This accuracy allows multiple individually recorded audio tracks to be combined into one or more multi-track audio files electronically post-recording.”), 5:6–7 (“the multiple audio recordings are combined to create one single recording”), 16:40–44 (“[T]he local audio device of each performer . . . may be combined to create one or more multitrack audio files that are stored with master timestamps generated by the receiver/recorder's internal master timecode generator.”), 19:2–4 (“[A]ll of the individual audio files may be combined to provide one or more comprehensive audio files.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that the ’307 patent specification describes an embodiment of a through the replacement of data, we are not persuaded that the recited “combined” limitation is limited to that embodiment, but rather also encompasses the multi-track embodiment of the ’307 patent. Id. at 4:15–18. Thus, we determine that the limitation “said local audio data is retrieved during or subsequent to said audio event and is combined with said remotely recorded audio data” does not require that the local and remote audio data originate from the same source because the ’307 patent specification contemplates a broader definition—one that includes the combination of local audio data and remotely recorded audio data to create a multi-track audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2–4; Ex. 2086 ¶ 18. Based on the foregoing, we construe the “combining” limitation as broad enough to encompass combining local audio data and remotely recorded audio data, without a requirement that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data are the same. In other words, we construe the “combining” limitation to encompass the disclosed multitrack embodiment in the ’307 patent specification, where separate audio tracks are combined to form a multitrack audio file. See Ex. 1001, 4:12–14, 5:6–7, 16:40–44, 19:2– 4.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“and in a condition to be worn.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (quoting Ex. 2110, 1628). This definition is consistent with the plain meaning of “wearable,” and we find no credible evidence on the record that requires a narrower definition. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Tinsman, provides a definition consistent with Patent Owner’s narrow definition. Rather than defining “wearable,” Mr. Tinsman explains that the term “bodypack” is “[s]omething relatively small and lightweight.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2109, 41:18–22). Further, when describing “wearable” as “unobtrusive, easily hidden,” Mr. Tinsman clarifies this description as “[y]ou know, reasonable to carry around.” Ex. 2109, 47:20–22. We determine that no other express claim construction analysis of any” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“of the ’307 patent, would have “a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related subject and two to five years working with audio and wireless communications systems.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. DeFilippis, similarly opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems either in industry or in graduate school.” Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. We adopt Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art as it is agreed upon and consistent with the prior art of record. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he level of skill in the art is a prism or lens through which a judge, jury, or the Board views the prior art and the claimed invention.”); Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.”). Specifically, we adopt that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the ’307 patent, would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and two or more years of experience working with audio and wireless communications systems. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 24); Ex. 2086 ¶ 13. To that end, we note that the prior art itself often reflects an appropriate skill level. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableUnpatentable
“We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. Petitioner identifies a first local audio device disclosed by Strub as “a small, lightweight, wearable recording unit.” Pet. 19 (quoting Ex. 1003, 4:29–31; citing Ex. 1003, 4:29–31, 14:59–15:11, 16:66–17:24, 38:65–39:11, 66:33– 51, 67:54–68:10, 72:10–19, Figs. 1, 8A–8C, 9A, 9B; Ex. 1011 ¶ 46). Petitioner further identifies the first local audio device as including position position data or biometric data, and time data. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:39–52, 35:53–61, 37:55–62, 63:41–60; Ex. 1011 ¶ 47). Finally, Petitioner identifies Strub’s disclosure of other recording devices to which local audio data is transmitted via transmitter 309 or wired connections. Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3). In summary, Strub discloses a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote devices. Ex. 1001, Fig. 1, 105–108, 8:50–53, 12:4–39, 66:7–25). Therefore, Petitioner has identified two devices in Strub—a local audio device and a remote audio device that receives the transmitted audio. Ex. 1003, 12:4–39, 66:7–25, Fig. 3. Petitioner has also identified the claimed local audio as the audio that is stored by a local audio device and transmitted to a remote audio device. Id. Furthermore, Patent Owner’s argument that Strub fails to disclose “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely recorded audio data and that the local audio data is combined with the remotely recorded audio data” is not persuasive because it is inconsistent with our claim construction discussed above. See Section II.B.1; PO Resp. 32. We do not construe the limitation “said local audio data may be retrieved after said locally recording and combined with said remotely recorded audio data” to require that the local audio data and remotely recorded audio data be the same data. Id. Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner that Strub discloses the disputed element because Strub discloses local audio devices transmitting recordings to other recording units and the recording units timestamping the recorded audio and synchronizing, i.e., combining, processing. Ex. 1003, 13:50–67. Patent Owner further argues that Strub does not disclose a local audio device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio.” PO Resp. 34–35. Patent Owner argues that Strub’s device is not “small, lightweight, unobtrusive, easily hidden, not visible, and designed to be worn on the body of a creator of audio (i.e., performer)” based on its claim construction. Id. at 34; see Section II.B.2. Mr. DeFilippis, Patent Owner’s expert, opines that Strub’s system “would require a computer that could compare content from multiple mpeg sources in real time and multiplex the results to a recording,” and the “hardware and software to do this could not be incorporated into a back pack, let alone a bodypack.” Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 2086 ¶ 43).” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 9,336,307 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,336,307 - Seabed Geosolutions (US), Inc. v. Magseis FF LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 5, 2019 · IPR2018-00961 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 and 9–24 are unpatentable under the stated § 103(a) grounds; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“7. Our Analysis of Claim 1 As we analyze the evidence, Mattaboni’s Figure 4 does not relate to any characteristic of its memories that limits the frequency range of recorded seismic data. Rather, Mattaboni’s Figure 4 is “the product of the manufacturer’s specified response curve for the geophone and the measured transfer function of the preamp and filter blocks of Figure 3.” Ex. 1006, Fig. 4 (caption). Mattaboni discloses that its memories are capable of recording data at 120 times per second, or 60 Hertz, and thus above the 50 Hertz that Patent Owner contends is necessary to record “seismic data.” Regarding Patent Owner’s statements (1) and (2) above, Patent Owner’s declarant does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which these opinions are based, and they are thus entitled to little or no weight. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a). Regarding Patent Owner’s statement (3), Mattaboni states that the displacement response peak of its instrument is between 25 and 35 Hertz, which is the most important range for microearthquakes. Ex. 1006, 5. Mattaboni, however, also states the effective frequency band of the disclosed instrument is “from about 2 Hz to somewhat over 50 Hz (Figure 4).” Id. at 5. Thus, Mattaboni’s instrument records signals “somewhat over 50 Hz” which is “at least above 50 Hz” and in the frequency range which Patent Owner’s declarant contends is needed to record “seismic data.” Ex. 2051 ¶ 35; Ex. 1104, 301:5–302:1 (testifying that 8–50 Hz range is minimum for “seismic data” under Patent Owner’s construction).” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“Considering the foregoing, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art of OBS technology would have had: (i) a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering, geophysics, mathematics, general engineering, or equivalent thereof, and five (5) years of experience with the conduct of surveys with geophones, or the equivalent thereof, including two (2) years of work specifically with OBS technologies, or the equivalent thereof; or (ii) a bachelor’s degree and an advanced degree in electrical or mechanical engineering, geophysics, mathematics, general engineering, or equivalent thereof, and four (4) years of experience with the conduct of surveys with geophones, two (2) years of which involve work specifically with OBS technologies, or the equivalent thereof. We adopt these statements as describing the level of ordinary skill in the art pertinent to the 761 Patent in our obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner contends there is a “heavy presumption” that claims terms have their ordinary meaning (CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)), and that Patent Owner did not overcome this presumption with a clear and precise definition (In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Reply 8. Claim terms must be construed, however, in light of the specification. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d at 1257. In the Specification, the 761 Patent describes “seismic data” as resulting from an acoustic signal from a seismic energy source that propagates into the earth and is partially reflected at subsurface lithologic or fluid boundaries and is detected and recorded as seismic energy data by seismic receivers. Ex. 1030, 1:12–23. Petitioner argues that this passage of the 761 Patent does not mention “seismic data.” We note, however, that this passage does mention “seismic energy data” which is shortened to “seismic data” when mentioned later in the 761 Patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1030, 2:48–51, 3:17–19, 3:26–30, 3:35–40, 3:61–63, 9:41–63. Petitioner further contends that several publications establish that “seismic data” is not limited to the oil and gas industry, but may be used in other fields such as earthquake monitoring. Reply. 10 (citing Exs. 1112– 1114, 1121). Patent Owner argues that its constructions are consistent with, and supported by, other publications from the oil and gas industry. PO Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2003; Ex. 2004, 213–232). Collectively, these publications establish that the term “seismic data” is used differently in different fields, but the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the patent’s Specification. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149–50 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As the 761 Patent uses the term “seismic data” consistent with the meaning proposed by Patent Owner, and not the more expansive definition proposed by Petitioner, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction as the correct one to use for our analysis in this decision. The plain meanings of claim terms are construed not in a vacuum, but in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d at 1257. Our construction of “seismic data” and “seismic data recorder” is consistent with the 761 Patent’s use of the terms.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree that Patent Owner’s failure to re-allege the argument in the Response waives the argument that Schmalfeldt is not a “printed publication.” See In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding waiver where a patent owner “challenged the public accessibility of the prior art references during the preliminary proceedings of the inter partes review . . . but failed to challenge public accessibility during the trial phase”); SAP Am., Inc. v. Versata Dev. Group, Inc., CBM2012-00001, Paper 81 (Sept. 13, 2013); Paper 12. In any case, Petitioner has demonstrated Schmalfeldt is a printed publication for reasons noted. Dec. Inst. 10–20; see also Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1105). Accordingly, we determine Petitioner has shown Schmalfeldt is a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,228,761 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,228,761 - Lego Systems, Inc. / Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. v. Figurefun LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · IPR2018-00755 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over each listed reference combination; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science with courses and experience in relevant mathematics and three to five years of experience with designing and developing coin-operated electronic gaming devices with electronic displays (such as slot machines).” Ex. 2001 ¶ 19. Any differences regarding additional experience in the parties’ competing proposals for the level of ordinary skill does not affect our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“action figure.” See, e.g., id. at 10:21–24 (“Here, it is not necessary that the token with built-in IC chip is configured so integrally with the action figure that the action figure may be fixed firmly and cannot be removed from the token.”), 10:24–25 (“The action figure may be configured so as to be detachable from the token, which is disk-shaped.”). As discussed above, the claims require a “token for a gaming machine” that comprises an integrated circuit chip or a storage section being “detachable from a figure.” Id. at 23:58–62, 26:9–13. The Specification also describes figures with integrated tokens with built-in IC chips (id. at 5:49–54), but the claims are directed by their express terms to embodiments of tokens with detachable figures. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that “token” does not include a “figure.” Thus, the term “token” cannot include within its scope a “figure.” To resolve the parties’ dispute regarding patentability, we need only determine that the term “token” does not include an “figure.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Any further express interpretation is not required for our analysis. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, we find that Lee teaches that, in the embodiment shown in its Figure 2, “transducer 64 can be attached to a preexisting wrestling figure” so that “a child who has a collection of various action figures can use those figures as part of the activity center.” Ex. 1004, 6:44– 51. Lee, thus, supports Petitioner’s declarant testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Levy so that its integrated circuit chip is detachable in the same manner as Lee so that “various action figures can be used with the token.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 88 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–51). We also find that modifying Levy as proposed by Petitioner is within ordinary skill. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 59. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification.” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“G. Objective Evidence of Nonobviousness The parties do not direct us to any objective evidence of nonobviousness. See generally Pet.; PO Resp.; Tr. 72:19–22 (Patent Owner’s counsel stating it did not submit objective evidence of non-obviousness).” slip op. at 64
Patent outcomesUS 7,338,377 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,338,377 - Lego Systems, Inc. / Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. v. Figurefun LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 26, 2019 · IPR2018-00754 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 9 is unpatentable under § 103 over White and Lee because they teach or suggest every limitation and provide a reason to combine with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find Patent Owner’s proposal consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We, therefore, find that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science with courses and experience in relevant mathematics and three to five years of experience with designing and developing coin-operated electronic gaming devices with electronic displays (such as slot machines).” Ex. 2001 ¶ 19. Any differences regarding additional experience in the parties’ competing proposals for the level of ordinary skill does not affect our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“action figure.” See, e.g., id. at 8:21–25 (“It is desirable for the . . . token with built-in IC chip to be integrally configured with a design of a three-dimensional form . . . (it may be referred to as ‘action figure’ hereinafter.) . . . ”), 8:33–34 (“The action figure may be configured so as to be detachable from the token.”). As discussed above, claim 9 requires that “an action figure is attached to the token with built-in IC chip.” Ex. 1001, 28:23–24. We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that “token” does not include an “action figure.” Thus, the term “token” cannot include within its scope an “action figure.” To resolve the parties’ dispute regarding patentability, we need only determine that the term “token” does not include an “action figure.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (construing only those claim terms in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review). Any further express interpretation is not required for our analysis. Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“attached to an action figure in a detachable manner. PO Resp. 48–49; see also PO Sur-Reply 19 (asserting same argument). We agree that Lee does not teach explicitly that transducer 64 is attached to its figure in a detachable manner; however, Lee suggests such an attachment “so the token can be used with preexisting figures.” Pet. 66. Petitioner’s declarant also testifies that Lee’s transducer is attachable and detachable or “it would have been obvious to make it such, as it would have been attached by friction in the space indicated, or by some sort of adhesive that would not need to be permanent.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 63; see also Pet. 65–66 (arguing that it would have been obvious “to provide the integrated circuit chip of White in a token that is attachable to and detachable from the action figure in view of Lee” so that “various action figures can be used with it”). We credit that testimony because the full record indicates that forming an attachment that is detachable is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. We, thus, determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have made the proposed modification “so the token can be used with preexisting figures.” Even under Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “attached . . . in a detachable manner” to mean “configured to be non-permanently connected to and readily separated from” (PO Resp. 27–28), we would determine that White as modified by Lee would have resulted in an attachment that is “configured to be non-permanently connected to and readily separated from” because Petitioner’s declarant states it could have been formed by “some sort of adhesive that would not need to be permanent” (Ex. 1002 ¶ 63). Thus, based on the full record, a preponderance of the evidence persuades us that White and Lee teach or suggest “an action figure [that] is attached to the token with built-in IC chip in a detachable manner.”” slip op. at 40
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“As discussed above, we find that Lee teaches that, in the embodiment shown in its Figure 2, “transducer 64 can be attached to a preexisting wrestling figure” so that “a child who has a collection of various action figures can use those figures as part of the activity center.” Ex. 1006, 6:44– 51. Lee, thus, supports Petitioner’s declarant testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified White so that its tag 5 is detachable in the same manner as Lee so that “various action figures can be used with the token.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 150 (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–51). We also find that modifying White as proposed by Petitioner is within ordinary skill. See, e.g., Ex. 1002 ¶ 63. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed modification. For the reasons above, we determine that Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified White in view of Lee to arrive at the subject matter of claim 9.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 7,001,276 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,001,276 - Supercell OY v. Gree, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 23, 2019 · PGR2018-00055 · APJ Lynne H Browne · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable under § 101; the Board denied the motion to amend because substitute claims 13–24 are also patent ineligible.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“claims provide more detail than the original claims, we do not agree that in this instance such detail renders the proposed substitute claims patent eligible. As explained above in Part II.B.2.a, the original claims are directed to a judicial exception (namely a certain method of organizing human activity), which is patent ineligible. The proposed substitute claims do not remedy this deficiency in the original claims. Rather, the proposed substitute claims merely add more detail to the ineligible subject matter. For example, substitute claim 13 recites “controlling . . . an effect of an attack . . . according to . . . a plurality of attack values, each of the plurality of attack values assigned to each attack of the number of attacks within the predetermined time by any characters in the group.” PO MTA 27. This recitation clearly provides more detail than was provided in original claim 1; however, the additional detail specifies how the video game is conducted (i.e., the rules to be followed) as opposed to a technological improvement. In other words the proposed substitute claims, like the original claims, recite following rules (specifically, rules for a battle game), which is a certain method of organizing human activity that has been found to be patent ineligible. Guidance at 52. For this reason, and the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.b regarding the original claims, we determine that the proposed substitute claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea). We also determine that the proposed substitute claims do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.c and that the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea do not recite an inventive concept for the reasons discussed above in Part II.B.2.d. Accordingly, we find that substitute claims 13–24 are not patent eligible.” slip op. at 52
- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept.” slip op. at 27
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable
“Even if Patent Owner’s assertions that the limitations of claim 1 are analogous to the identified limitations in Examples 37 and 38 of the Guidance and do not recite mathematical concepts, this is not dispositive on the issue of whether claim 1 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The Guidance identifies “following rules” such as “rules for conducting a wagering game” as one method of organizing human activity that is patent ineligible. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (citing In re Smith, 815 F.3d at 818). The preamble to claim 1 recites “[a] method for providing a battle game to each of a plurality of client devices via a network.” Ex. 1001, 7:54– 55. The preamble of Example 37 recites “[a] method of rearranging icons on a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer system” and the preamble of Example 38 recites “[a] method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog audio mixer.” USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 1 (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_ 20190107.pdf. Neither of the example claims has anything to do with a method of providing a battle game or following rules, and thus, cannot demonstrate by analogy that claim 1 is patent eligible.” slip op. at 22
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable
“We are persuaded that Petitioner is correct because once again Patent Owner relies on the limitations that are encompassed by the judicial exception for the inventive concept. Our analysis under step 2B, like our analysis above under step 2A prong 2, looks to the additional elements beyond the judicial exception. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (“For example the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.”). Patent Owner identifies no additional elements beyond the judicial exception as providing an inventive concept and does not argue that the additional elements beyond that judicial exception are not well-known, routine, and conventional. For these reasons, we determine that claims 1–12 do not provide an inventive concept. e. Conclusion re Subject Matter Eligibility For the reasons set forth in Parts II.B.2.a–d, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–12 are not subject matter eligible.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 9,687,744 unpatentableClaim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,687,744 - HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. et al. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 12, 2019 · IPR2018-01032 · APJ William M Fink · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1–6, 11–18, and 21 over Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001; claims 7–11 and 19–21 over those references and Romanik.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“On January 18, 2019, we granted Valve Corporation’s Motion for Joinder in Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Case IPR2019-00074 (PTAB filed Oct. 11, 2018). Paper 12, 10. In doing so, we joined Valve Corporation to this proceeding, resulting in HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Valve Corporation (collectively “Petitioner”) challenging the claims of the ’935 patent. Id.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not provide its own explanation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner also does not oppose Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art. Upon consideration of the record, including the level of skill reflected by the cited references, Welch-HiBall and SIGGRAPH 2001, we agree with and therefore adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition for the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For purposes of institution, we determined it was unnecessary to construe any of these claim terms expressly to address the parties’ arguments. Inst. Dec. 6. Similarly, in view of the complete record, we find that it is unnecessary to provide a separate explicit claim construction to resolve the issues before us. Instead, to the extent the parties’ arguments are based on the scope of the claims, we resolve the disputed claim scope in the context of the parties’ arguments as set forth below.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends SIGGRAPH 2001 is a set of printed, bound course materials distributed to attendees of a course taught by Dr. Welch and colleagues on August 12, 2001, at a widely attended conference (called “SIGGRAPH”), and, therefore, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 19–21. Petitioner provides evidence in support of SIGGRAPH 2001’s availability, including Dr. Welch’s testimony regarding the distribution of the course materials at the conference. See id. (citing Exs. 1025–1029, 1036; Welch Decl. ¶¶ 104–108). Patent Owner does not dispute these contentions. In view of the evidence demonstrating the public availability of SIGGRAPH 2001, Petitioner has demonstrated persuasively that SIGGRAPH 2001 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 8,553,935 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,553,935 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. M & K Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2019 · IPR2018-00697 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as obvious over Budagavi, WD3-v1, and Sole; the motion to amend is granted, adding substitute claims 8–14.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“A. Principles of Law It is a petitioner’s burden to demonstrate unpatentability. 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)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said 2 Budagavi et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0170594 A1 (July 14, 2011, filed Dec. 30, 2010) (Ex. 1005). 3 Sole et al., Unified Scans for the Significance Map and Coefficient level Coding in High Coding Efficiency, JCTVC-E335 (version 3) (uploaded Mar. 19, 2011) (Ex. 1006). 4 Thomas Wiegand et al., WD3: Working Draft 3 of High-Efficiency Video Coding, JCTVC-E603 (version 1) (uploaded March 30, 2011) (Ex. 1007). subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on the following underlying factual determinations: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.5 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds with the principles stated above in mind.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“1, which teaches using a single scan depending on a prediction mode, with teachings related to Figure 2, which teaches scanning subsets in a different direction than scanning coefficients within a subset (without teaching the two scans depend on the intra prediction mode). See Ex. 1006, 1–2, Figs. 1 and 2; Opp. 8–9 (citing Pet. 43–49; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 134–135). In so doing, Petitioner improperly combines two teachings from separate embodiments without an adequate reason. As the main reason for the combination, Petitioner contends that Sole combines the teachings from the two embodiments. See Pet. 45 (arguing “Sole also discloses using a backward zigzag scan for scanning the quantized coefficients of each subset and the plurality of subsets, which is a modified version of the scan technique shown in Figure 2” (emphasis added)), 45–51 (relying on what Sole allegedly teaches and explaining why an artisan of ordinary skill would have looked to Sole). Dr. Kalva credibly testifies that Sole does not teach combining the teachings. See, e.g., Ex. 2025 ¶ 91 (“Sole repeatedly asserts that its aim is to apply the same scan pattern used for the significance map to the coefficient level coding (e.g., the quantized coefficients.)”), ¶ 94 (The conclusion that Sole does not teach or suggest scanning subsets using a scan pattern determined by the intra prediction mode is confirmed by Davies and Sole II.”), ¶ 95 (“[T]he subsets are not scanned, let alone scanned using a scan pattern determined by the intra prediction”).” slip op. at 103
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“algorithm implements a single scan direction without suggesting retaining the sub-block concept and without suggesting scanning sub-blocks according to an intra prediction mode. Therefore, Sole does not teach scanning a plurality of subsets according to an intra prediction mode as claim 8 requires. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet the burden of showing that a person of ordinary skill would have considered the combined teachings of Budagavi and Sole to meet the last limitation of proposed substitute claim 8. After reviewing the entire record, we determine Petitioner has not shown that the subject matter of proposed substitute claim 8 would have been obvious over Budagavi and Sole. We therefore grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to proposed substitute claim 8. 2. Patentability of Claims 9–14 Because the parties do present not separate arguments for proposed substitute claims 9–14, which depend from proposed substitute claim 8, they stand with claim 8. Accordingly, we further grant Patent Owner’s Motion to Amend as to these proposed substitute dependent claims. IV.” slip op. at 107
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner does not meet the burden on its Motion. In addition, even if we disregard statements by Mr. Bross in paragraphs 11 and 12 that we hold here fall under a hearsay exception or constitute non-hearsay, it would not alter the outcome, given other evidence, including (but not requiring) the evidence of a verbal act discussed above, and including other Exhibits discussed above collectively showing that interested artisans exercising reasonable diligence should have been able to visit the website and would have known it archived HEVC standards, lending a reason to visit it.” slip op. at 115
Patent outcomesUS 9,191,673 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,191,673
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.