• Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq Ise, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2019 · CBM2018-00021 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing on the ethics rules and granted Interrogatories 4 and 5 and Document Request 2, while denying rehearing on the remaining specified discovery requests.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the” slip op. at 2

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedGranted in part

    “Upon reconsideration, we agree with Patent Owner that the timing of Dr. Hendershott’s preparation and the editing of common paragraphs 18–36 is unclear on the current record. For example, Dr. Hendershott testified that he could not remember whether Fish suggested that he provide a history of Wall Street and the exchanges, which are embodied in paragraphs 18–36. See Ex. 1062, 53:14–19. Dr. Hendershott also testified that he received from Fish versions of his declaration containing edits, but did not remember whether any of those edits were substantive in nature. See id. at 51:19–25, 52:8–22. Dr. Hendershott also did not review the edits to his declarations and thus was arguably not prepared to testify as to the circumstances surrounding the creation and editing of the common paragraphs. See id. at 58:2–8. Thus, we grant Interrogatories 4 and 5 and Discovery Request 2, as relevant information only in the possession of Fish and Reed Smith (Bloomberg Factor 3). We deny Document Request 3, however, because we remain unpersuaded that it is relevant to showing that confidential information could have found its way from Fish to Reed Smith. Ord. 11. In particular, Document Request 3 relates to information flowing from Reed Smith to Dr. Hendershott, and is therefore not relevant to whether Fish used or revealed information to Reed Smith relating to its prosecution of the Nasdaq patents.” slip op. at 12

  None
  Patents in suitUS 6,618,707
• Miami International Holdings, Inc. / Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC et al. v. Nasdaq Ise, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 15, 2019 · CBM2018-00020 · APJ Kristi L R Sawert · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board granted rehearing on the ethics rules and three discovery requests, denied it on five others, and ordered additional responses and production.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that a decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify all matters it believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision, we review the 2 The parties filed identical papers in CBM2018-00020, CBM2018-00021, and CBM2018-00031. Patent Owner requested to file motions for additional discovery in CBM2018-00029, CBM2018-00030, and CBM2018-00032 on the same basis. See Ex. 2016. We held that request in abeyance. See Paper 21. The requested additional discovery would be substantially the same in all of these proceedings, and, thus, we include CBM2018-00029, CBM2018- 00030, and CBM2018-00032 in this order as well. See Ex. 2016. For efficiency, we only refer to the papers filed in CBM2018-00021. decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus. Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 2

  • Additional discoveryAdditional discovery, grantedGranted in part

    “Upon reconsideration, we agree with Patent Owner that the timing of Dr. Hendershott’s preparation and the editing of common paragraphs 18–36 is unclear on the current record. For example, Dr. Hendershott testified that he could not remember whether Fish suggested that he provide a history of Wall Street and the exchanges, which are embodied in paragraphs 18–36. See Ex. 1062, 53:14–19. Dr. Hendershott also testified that he received from Fish versions of his declaration containing edits, but did not remember whether any of those edits were substantive in nature. See id. at 51:19–25, 52:8–22. Dr. Hendershott also did not review the edits to his declarations and thus was arguably not prepared to testify as to the circumstances surrounding the creation and editing of the common paragraphs. See id. at 58:2–8. Thus, we grant Interrogatories 4 and 5 and Discovery Request 2, as relevant information only in the possession of Fish and Reed Smith (Bloomberg Factor 3). We deny Document Request 3, however, because we remain unpersuaded that it is relevant to showing that confidential information could have found its way from Fish to Reed Smith. Ord. 11. In particular, Document Request 3 relates to information flowing from Reed Smith to Dr. Hendershott, and is therefore not relevant to whether Fish used or revealed information to Reed Smith relating to its prosecution of the Nasdaq patents.” slip op. at 12

  None
  Patents in suitUS 8,386,371
• Google Inc. v. Performance Pricing Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 13, 2017 · CBM2016-00050 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable under §§ 101 and 112(a) because they claim an abstract advertising-pricing idea implemented with conventional technology and lack written-description support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Considering these factors, we agree with Petitioner that a degree in computer science is not required for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Reply 4. First, as Patent Owner admitted at the hearing, the named inventor, Mr. Rosenberg, does not have a computer science degree. Tr. 87:8–22. Second, as Patent Owner’s Response makes clear, the problems encountered in the field of the ’059 patent are problems of maintaining advertising customers, when viewer response to an ad can be tracked and there is an almost limitless inventory. PO Resp. 5–7. These are economic and business problems caused by the particular market conditions present in the Internet advertising market—large inventory and a high level of knowledge of behavior in the market. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 36. We are persuaded that a computer science degree would not provide a person with further useful insight into such economic and business problems. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40. Indeed, this understanding is confirmed by the ’059 patent, which describes the business problems Internet advertising had on sellers of advertising. See, e.g., Ex. 1002, 1:55–59 (“As systems of accountability are developed and the amount of advertising inventory increases, vendors or publishers in all media will be faced with the problems of attracting advertisers while, at the same time, covering overhead costs.”); 1:60–63 (noting “[o]ne problem associated with current methods of selling Internet advertising is the difficulty of striking a fair and reasonable balance between fixed-fee pricing and performance-based pricing”); 1:63–3:24 (describing characteristics of the Internet advertising market); 3:27–31 (“[T]he present invention include methods and systems for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.”). Third, the discussion of computer components in the ’059 patent is only at a very high level. See, e.g., id. at 8:33–9:9 (discussing the components of the claimed system as only “computers,” “servers,” “databases,” “network protocol (such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol or HTTP)”). This indicates that the focus is not on the computer technology, but the pricing strategy. Fourth, the prior art solutions discussed in the ’059 patent are all in terms of different pricing models—“fixed fee” or “performance based”—not in terms of technical solutions. See id. at 1:55– 3:24. Finally, Patent Owner submits a job announcement by Petitioner for hiring a “Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords,” as evidence of the level of skill of workers in this field. PO Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 2006 (Google Technical Program Manager, Ads Quality, AdWords Job Announcement)). However, no evidence or explanation is provided why this announcement should be given particular weight for defining the educational level of active workers in the field of the ’059 patent, beyond the fact that they both nominally involve Internet advertising. See PO Resp. 29. Moreover, no evidence or explanation is provided why a job announcement from 2016 would relate to the level of skill in the art at the time of the invention, i.e., at the latest, 2001, the effective filing date of the ’059 patent. See id. Thus, we give Ex. 2006 little weight. Accordingly, considering this evidence together, we agree with Petitioner that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would have, through education or practical experience, the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in business, economics, or a similar discipline and/or two years of experience with media buying or selling, including Internet advertising or e-commerce systems.” Pet. 17. slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “lacks a computer science degree, he is not a person of ordinary skill and we should give his testimony no weight. PO Resp. 29. As set forth above, we are unpersuaded that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill above is correct. Accordingly, this argument is unpersuasive. Dr. Farris is a tenured professor of business and during his career, Dr. Farris has written a number of articles and books on advertising, including Internet advertising. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 5–19, Appendix B. He has also taught a number of courses in Internet advertising, and has done extensive consulting on Internet advertising. Id. Thus, contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, we are persuaded that Dr. Farris’s experience is more than sufficient for him to provide competent testimony on the subject matter of the ’059 patent. Accordingly, we decline to give his testimony no weight.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We construe the challenged claims according to these principles. In our Decision to Institute, we determined that no terms required express construction. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner contends that we should construe the term “impression,” recited in claim 1, as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” PO Resp. 29–31. In the Reply, Petitioner indicates that it agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation and points to the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Farris and Patent Owner’s declarant Mr. Zatkovich for support. Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 27, Ex. 1017, 44:19–45:19, 142:15–143:12). This is also the construction we adopted in our Decision to Institute in the related proceeding, CBM2016- 00049. See Google Inc. v. Performance Price Holdings, LLC, Case CBM2016-00049, slip op. 5–6 (PTAB Sept. 21, 2016) (Paper 10). Given that this construction is consistent with the specification, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction of “impression” as “presentation of an Internet advertising message.” See Ex. 1002, 2:36–44, 5:12–16.” slip op. at 15

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner that these claims are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, we agree with Petitioner that the claims of the challenged patent are directed to decreasing the cost of an advertisement based on the performance of the ad, and that such a concept is an abstract idea. Pet. 19. More succinctly, we are persuaded that the claims are directed to a performance-based pricing model for advertising, and that such a pricing model is an abstract idea. The clear language of the claims and unambiguous disclosure of the specification to the contrary belie Patent Owner’s arguments. For example, beginning with independent claims 1 and 6, the only equipment that those claims identify are a “processor” and “at least one storage device in communication with the at least one processor.” Ex. 1002, 12:24–25, 12:56–57. The remainder of the claim is simply a method embodied in instructions stored on the storage device. As discussed above, these claimed method steps include having the processor (i) “ascertain[ ] . . . a predetermined cost to an entity per impression of an advertising message,” (ii) “present[ ] . . . the advertising message for display on a website such that the advertising message is viewable via one or more viewer computers,” (iii) “detect[ ] . . . a quantity of actions performed by users of the one or more viewer computers,” and (iv) “decrease[e] the cost per impression of the advertising message to the entity below the predetermined cost” as the “quantity of detected actions increases.” Id. at 12:30–43. Thus, the focus of the claims is on collecting and analyzing data for the pricing method, not the hardware on which it is performed or the software that implicitly causes it to happen. The specification reinforces the abstract nature of the claimed invention. The “Summary of the Invention,” explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention include methods and system for selling advertising, which incorporates a unique pricing model wherein advertising Buyers earn bonus exposure to the advertising message based on the reflected interest by the Viewers in that advertising message.” Id. at 3:27–33. Indeed, the specification describes the advantages of the claimed invention include helping sellers secure fixed-fee pricing while offering a performance-based incentive to buyers, and attracting potential buyers, while maintaining customer loyalty, encouraging effective creative advertising design and placement, and assisting sellers in managing unsold inventory. Id. at 3:34– 39. These advantages all concern abstract concepts, and not technology.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,799,059 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Enfish · Electric Power
  Patents in suitUS 8,799,059
• Apple Inc. / Google Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00029 · APJ Rama G Elluru · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 15 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of conditioning access to content on payment using only generic, conventional computer elements.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “Petitioner argues that claims 3 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of “paying for and/or controlling access to content.” Pet. 19; see id. at 20– 23. Although Smartflash does not concede, in its Patent Owner Response, that claims 3 and 15 are directed to an abstract idea, it does not persuasively explain how the challenged claims escape being classified as abstract. PO Resp. 15–22 (Patent Owner Response argues that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Paper 41 (transcript of oral hearing), 6:13–16 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has presented no argument whatoever to contest that its claims are directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”) id. at 6:17–18 (Petitioner also stating “It [] also never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”). We are persuaded that claims 3 and 15 are drawn to an abstract idea. Specifically, claims 3 and 15 are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of conditioning and controlling access to content based on payment. Claim 3 recites “code . . . to receive at least one access rule . . . the at least one access rule specifying at least one condition for accessing the retrieved data written into the data carrier, the at least one condition being dependent upon the amount of payment associated with the payment data forwarded to the payment validation system.” Independent claim 14, not at issue here, recites a similar limitation. Claim 15, depending from claim 14, further recites “receiving payment validation data . . . and transmitting at least a portion of the payment validation data to the data supplier.”” slip op. at 9

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “inventive concept” because any additional features recited in the challenge claims are either field of use limitaitons or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues are insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 23–28. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14. Petitioner persuades us that claims 3 and 15 of the ’720 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 3 and 15 are either field of use limitations or generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 23–28; Reply 4–6. slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that Exhibit 1302 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’720 patent), but as evidence of how Smartflash has characterized the ’720 patent. Thus, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1302 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’720 patent. Furthermore, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1302 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’720 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’720 patent in this proceeding. Smartflash contends that Exhibit 1302 does not contradict its characterization of the ’720 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is an issue. Paper 30, 3. Smartflash’s argument misses the point because the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is for us to decide, and we have to consider the document at issue in making that determination. Further, as Petitioner notes (Paper 32, 2), Smartflash’s characterization of the ’720 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Smartflash’s contention in this proceeding that the ’720 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Prelim. Resp. 5–10). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1302.” slip op. at 27

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Smartflash has not articulated a persuasive reason for excluding Mr. Wechselberger’s Declaration. Smartflash has not cited any authority requiring an expert to recite or apply the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in order for the expert opinion to be accorded weight. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d), we apply the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether Petitioner has established unpatentability. In doing so, it is within our discretion to determine the appropriate weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, including the weight accorded to expert opinion, based on the disclosure of the underlying facts or data upon which the opinion is based. Our discretion includes determining whether the expert testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods and whether the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. See FRE 702.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,334,720 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 7,334,720
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00031 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim an abstract idea without an inventive concept.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of “paying for and/or controlling access to content.” Pet. 23; see id. at 24–27. Although Smartflash does not concede, in its Patent Owner Response, that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea, it does not persuasively explain how the challenged claims escape being classified as abstract. PO Resp. 15–25 (Patent Owner Response arguing that claims are statutory under only the second step of Mayo and Alice); see also Tr. 7:19–22 (Petitioner stating that “Patent Owner has made no argument that its claims are not directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of Mayo and Alice.”) (emphasis added), id. at 7:22–23 (Petitioner also stating “[Patent Owner] has never disputed the articulation of those abstract ideas”). We are persuaded that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “code to receive payment validation data . . . for said at least one selected item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 8 recites “code to control access to said selected content data item responsive to the payment validation data.” Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “code to retrieve supplementary data via said wireless interface and output said supplementary data to said user using said display.” Claim 10 depends from claim 8 and recites “said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.”” slip op. at 10

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleDecided for petitioner

    “2. Inventive Concept “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). “This requires more than simply stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’ or ‘apply it with a computer.’ Similarly, the prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment.” Versata, 793 F.3d at 1332 (citations omitted). Moreover, the mere recitation of generic computer components performing conventional functions is not enough. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”). Petitioner argues that the challenged claims do not disclose an “inventive concept” because any additional features recited in the challenged claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling access to content based on “payment data”—or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 13–14. Petitioner persuades us that claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 1, 5, 8, and 10 are field of use limitations and/or generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 27–32; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 13

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We are persuaded by Petitioner that Exhibit 1202 is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., the content of the ’772 patent), but as evidence of how Smartflash has characterized the ’772 patent. Thus, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is evidence of the content of a writing or that it is cumulative to the ’772 patent. Furthermore, Smartflash has not persuaded us that Exhibit 1202 is irrelevant, at least because its characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to the credibility of its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding. Smartflash contends that Exhibit 1202 does not contradict its characterization of the ’772 patent in this proceeding such that the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is an issue. Paper 33, 3. Smartflash’s argument misses the point because the credibility of Smartflash’s characterization is for us to decide, and we have to consider the document at issue in making that determination. Further, as Petitioner notes (Paper 32, 2), Smartflash’s characterization of the ’772 patent in prior proceedings is relevant to Smartflash’s contention in this proceeding that the ’772 patent does not satisfy the “financial in nature” requirement for a covered business method patent review (Prelim. Resp. 5–11). Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibit 1202.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Ltd et al. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 26, 2016 · CBM2015-00032 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 14, 19, and 22 are unpatentable under § 101 because they claim the abstract idea of conditioning access to content based on payment using conventional computer components.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that claims 14, 19, and 22 are drawn to the abstract idea of conditioning and controlling access to content based on, for example, payment. Specifically, independent claim 14 recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one item of multimedia content to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one item of multimedia content.” Independent claim 19 is similar and recites “code responsive to said user selection of said selected at least one content data item to transmit payment data relating to payment for said selected at least one content item.” Claim 22 depends from claim 19 and recites “wherein said data access terminal is integrated with a mobile communications device and audio/video player.”” slip op. at 11

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptIneligibleDecided for petitioner

    “claims are either field of use limitations—limiting the ideas of payment and controlling access to content to payment for retrieving “data” and controlling access to content based on “payment data” and “payment validation data”— or generic computer implementations, which Petitioner argues is insufficient to bring the claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31. Specifically, Petitioner contends that the challenged claims “recite no more than generic computer elements and functions that were well-known, routine, and conventional to a POSITA at the time of filing.” Reply 6 (citations omitted); see id. at 10–12. Petitioner persuades us that claims 14, 19, and 22 of the ’772 patent do not add an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than claims on the abstract idea itself. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; see also Accenture Global Servs., 728 F.3d at 1344 (holding claims directed to the abstract idea of “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event” to be unpatentable even when applied in a computer environment and within the insurance industry). Specifically, we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s rationale that the additional elements of claims 14, 19, and 22 are field of use limitations and/or are generic features of a computer that do not bring these claims within § 101 patent eligibility. Pet. 25–31; Reply 4–6.” slip op. at 14

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedGranted in part

    “We agree with Petitioner. As noted above, Smartflash, as movant, has the burden to show that these exhibits are inadmissible. Smartflash’s reference to FRE 703 in unavailing because while this rule does not establish the admissibility of the exhibits, it also does not speak to whether these exhibits are inadmissible. Because Mr. Wechselberger attests that he reviewed these exhibits in reaching the opinions he expressed in this case, Smartflash has not shown that they are irrelevant under FRE 401 and 402. Accordingly, we decline to exclude Exhibits 1324, 1329, 1330, 1333, and 1335. We grant the motion as to Exhibit 1305.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 8,336,772 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibilitycites Alice · Mayo · Bilski
  Patents in suitUS 8,336,772
• Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 29, 2016 · CBM2015-00016 · APJ Jeremy M Plenzler · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 6, 8, and 10 are unpatentable under § 101; claim 11 is unpatentable under § 112 ¶ 2; the proceeding is terminated as to claim 1.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “B. Related Matters and Termination In a previous covered business method patent review, CBM2014- 00106, we issued a Final Written Decision determining claim 1 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CBM2014-00106, Paper 52. Because Apple was the petitioner in that proceeding, we found that § 325(e)(1) estops Apple from filing or maintaining a proceeding before the Office with respect to claim 1, i.e., the same claim, in this case. Paper 50 (“Estoppel Order”), 4. We, therefore, ordered Apple not to present argument with respect to the patentability of that claim at the oral hearing on November 9, 2015. Id. at 8.” slip op. at 3

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentGranted

    “We are persuaded that the particular facts of this proceeding now counsel in favor of termination with respect to claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 42.72. Claim 1 of the ’458 patent has been finally cancelled and any decision we might reach in this proceeding regarding the patentability of this claim would be moot and purely advisory. We do not see how the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)) would be secured by rendering a final written decision with respect to claim 1.” slip op. at 3

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Step1 directed to exceptionUnpatentable

    “We agree that the challenged claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Specifically, the challenged claims are directed to performing the fundamental economic practice of controlling access to content. For example, claim 6 recites “code to evaluate the use status data using the use rules data to determine whether access is permitted to the stored data” and “code to access the stored data when access is permitted.” As discussed above, the ’458 patent discusses addressing recording industry concerns of data pirates offering unauthorized access to widely available compressed audio recordings. Ex. 1201, 1:20–55. The ’458 patent proposes to solve this problem by restricting access to data on a device based upon satisfaction of use rules linked to payment data. Id. at 9:7–25. As Petitioner notes (Pet. 26), the ’458 patent makes clear that the claimed subject matter is directed to paying for data and providing access to data. See Ex. 1201 at 2:20–23 (“This invention is . . . particularly . . . relate[d] to a portable data carrier for storing and paying for data and to computer systems for providing access to data.”). Although the specification discusses data piracy on the Internet (see id. at 1:29–39), the challenged claims are not limited to the Internet. The underlying concept of the challenged claims, particularly when viewed in light of the ’458 patent specification, is controlling access to content, as Petitioner contends. As discussed further below, this is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611. We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’458 patent specification and the language of the challenged claims, that claims 6, 8, and 10 are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding that the concept of intermediated settlement at issue in Alice was an abstract idea); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding the abstract idea at the heart of a system claim to be “generating tasks [based on] rules . . . to be completed upon the occurrence of an event”).” slip op. at 8

  • Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step two — inventive conceptStep2 no inventive conceptUnpatentable

    “The specification of the ’458 patent treats as well-known all potentially technical aspects of the claims, which simply require generic computer components (e.g., interfaces, program store, and processor). The linkage of existing hardware devices to supplier-defined access rules appear to be “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294. Further, the claimed computer code simply performs generic computer functions, such as accessing, retrieving, and evaluating data. See Pet. 29–30. The recitation of these generic computer functions is insufficient to confer specificity. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). Moreover, we are not persuaded that claims 6, 8, and 10 “recite specific ways of using distinct memories, data types, and use rules that amount to significantly more than” conditioning and controlling access to content based on payment. See PO Resp. 18. The challenged claims do not recite any particular or “distinct memories.” To the extent Patent Owner argues that the claimed “program store” is a memory, Patent Owner does not provide any argument as to how it is constructed or implemented in an unconventional manner. Moreover, the claims recite several generic data types, such as “code,” “use status data,” and “use rules data.” We are not persuaded that the recitation of these data types, by itself, amounts to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Patent Owner does not point to any inventive concept in the ’458 patent related to the way these data types are constructed or used. The recitation of generic data types, being used in the conventional manner, is insufficient to confer the specificity required to elevate the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on the [ineligible concept] itself.’”) (brackets in original). In addition, the ’458 patent simply recites data types with no description of the underlying implementation or programming that results in these data types. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC, 776 F.3d at 1347 (“The concept of data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known. Indeed, humans have always performed these functions.”). In addition, because the recited elements can be implemented on a general purpose computer, the challenged claims do not cover a “particular machine.” Pet. 36; see Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604–05 (stating that machine-or-transformation test remains “a useful and important clue” for determining whether an invention is patent eligible). And the challenged claims do not transform an article into a different state or thing. Pet. 36.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,033,458 unpatentable
  § 101 eligibility§ 112 disclosurecites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 8,033,458
• Square, Inc. v. Think Computer CorporationRehearing granted
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2016 · CBM2014-00159 · APJ Michael W Kim · CBM · Rehearing

  The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request insofar as it addressed the assertions in the decision, but denied it in all other respects; the prior analysis remained unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part

    “A request for rehearing can only point out that which the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and will be reviewed for abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). Moreover, as the moving party, the burden of persuasion falls on Patent Owner. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,768 (Aug. 14, 2012).” slip op. at 1

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

    “are unpersuaded that they would alter our construction. For example, Patent Owner asserts that the claim limitation “any particular transaction” requires that “bidirectional account” be construed as allowing an account to function simultaneously as both a merchant account and a purchaser account under all transactions. We disagree, primarily because we are unclear as to what Patent Owner means by “under all transactions.” The relevant limitation of independent claim 1 reads “wherein the first account and the second account are adapted to selectively function as either a merchant or a purchaser account during any particular transaction.” We find that “[a]ny particular transaction” means any specific transaction, and is not necessarily limited to all transactions going forward, and find further that, logically, an account need only function in “merchant mode” or “purchaser mode” for that particular transaction; otherwise the account would be in the awkward position of performing a transaction with itself. Moreover, we are unclear as to why the same account cannot function as both, depending on the transaction, as an account is merely a repository within which funds are held, and whether the account is in “merchant mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds from the account) or “purchaser mode” (i.e., the ability to send funds to the account) does not alter the fundamental repository nature of the account itself. A similar analysis of the cited portions of the prosecution history and Specification yields similar conclusions. For example, Patent Owner’s discussion of the prosecution history on pages 4 and 5 of the Request for Rehearing do not amount to Patent Owner providing an explicit definition of “selectively function,” “during any particular transition,” or any other claim term as meaning “simultaneously”; nor do Patent Owner’s statements rise to the level of a clear and unmistakable disclaimer with respect to the meaning of the claim terms.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “2. whether Dalzell fails to meet the claims’ requirements Based on Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction of “bidirectional accounts,” Patent Owner asserts that Dalzell does not disclose “bidirectional accounts.” Req. 7‒10. As we are unpersuaded, however, that the Board misapprehended or overlooked the items identified by Patent Owner in construing “bidirectional accounts,” we are unpersuaded that our analysis of Dalzell and “bidirectional accounts” set forth on pages 28 to 29 of the Final Written Decision should be modified in any way. See Dec. 29 (“[W]e find that a more logical reading of paragraph 59 of Dalzell is that a buyer, from a particular account, can add a seller feature to that particular account, without the need to create a whole new account. Such a finding is supported by extensive analysis and testimony by Dr. Sadeh-Koniecpol, with explicit citations to Dalzell, which we find credible, reasonable, and persuasive. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147-164 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 9, 27, 49, 57, 61, 82, 85, 87, 132, 163, Figs. 1A, 1B).”)” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,396,808
• Search America, Inc. v. Transunion Intelligence, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2015 · CBM2013-00038 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 5–8, 10–14, 16, and 18 are anticipated by the TDHS System; the remaining claims are obvious over the Mather Method.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of “derived” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application was “obtained by reasoning” or “calculated.” Id. In support of this contention, Patent Owner cites the Declaration of Stephen Gray,1 which refers to one of the definitions provided by Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 4th ed., 1 As discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude the Gray Declaration. Ballantine Books (New York 2001). Ex. 2002 ¶ 100 (citing Ex. 2002E). But as Petitioner points out, Mr. Gray refers to the last definition in the dictionary entry, although the first definition provided for the word “derive” is “to receive or get from a source.” Reply 3. Second, Patent Owner refers to a statement in the specification of the ’408 patent that “the debt to income ratio can be computed,” reasoning that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the credit information input into the [computer program product] of claim 1 could not have been mere data taken from a credit report but rather would have been the result of some calculation or computation.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 4, ll. 2–3; Ex. 2002 ¶ 100). We disagree with Patent Owner’s reasoning because the statement in the specification merely provides an example of a calculation. Furthermore, as Petitioner observes, Patent Owner’s position is untenable because the context of the identified statement refers to calculation of “qualification criteria” rather than of “credit information.” See Reply 3. The claim’s text distinguishes between “qualification criteria” and “credit information.” In addition, and as Petitioner also observes, the prosecution history supports that credit information need not be calculated to be input. See id. We construe “derived” as “received from a source.”” slip op. at 7

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted in part

    “Dolamore is not being offered as an expert in these proceedings,” in which case the prohibition of Fed. R. Evid. 602 against testimony to a matter outside the personal knowledge of the witness applies. See Paper 38, 2; Paper 51, 1. The second sentence of paragraph 10 of the Dolamore Declaration asserts that “[t]hrough Bruce Nelson, Search America was able to fairly rapidly copy [ADS Response Corp.]’s healthcare product.” This assertion is not without ambiguity, and either may be read as asserting that Search America did, in fact, “fairly rapidly copy” the referenced product or may be read as asserting only that such fairly rapid copying was within the ability of Search America “through Bruce Nelson.” Under either interpretation, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has provided insufficient evidence to prove personal knowledge of the assertion. Moreover, an opinion whether Search America possessed the ability to fairly rapidly copy the referenced product “through Bruce Nelson” is outside the scope of admissible testimony for a lay witness under Fed. R. Evid. 701. Accordingly, we exclude the second sentence of paragraph 10 of the Dolamore Declaration.” slip op. at 10

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

    “only loosely associated as Patent Owner contends is not central to our analysis. As Petitioner observes, a determination that the claims are unpatentable need be supported only by a demonstration that the claimed features were in the public’s possession before the critical date. Reply 5–6 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Patent Owner has not argued persuasively for a claim construction that requires an assessment of how tightly software modules were integrated or that the claims demand that software be contained in a single program. We have reviewed the evidence presented by Petitioner, including the claim charts in the Petition (Pet. 23–33, 35–47), the transcript of Mr. Spruiell’s deposition (Ex. 1007), the transcript of Mr. Graves’s deposition (Ex. 1008), and relevant portions of CSA/FS (Ex. 1009). Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the TDHS System anticipates claims 1– 3, 5–8, 10–14, 16, and 18. We address specific arguments below, noting that Patent Owner concedes that the same arguments apply to each of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 18. PO Resp. 26, 27.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “obvious over the TDHS System. Pet. 53–56. Patent Owner correctly observes that Mr. Spruiell testified that TESS and GWS did not calculate the debt-to-income ratio. PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 1007,2 55:14–16, 88:18–20). Patent Owner further observes that Mr. Gray, “who reviewed the entirety of the technical documents in Exhibit 1009, testified that debt-to-income ratio was never calculated in the TDHS [S]ystem.” PO Resp. 28 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 129). We credit the testimony of both Mr. Spruiell and Mr. Gray, but ultimately do not find them inconsistent. In particular, Mr. Spruiell made clear that calculation of the debt-to-income ratio “was something that a caseworker would do . . . . So that income-to-debt ratio would be something that you looked at prior to beginning the Generic Worksheet.” Ex. 1007, 89:3–16. Mr. Gray’s testimony does not refute unambiguously this assertion. Rather, Mr. Gray expresses an opinion that “[a]n applicant’s debt was not included in any aspect of the GWS module” and that “an eligibility worker viewing a Combined Report for a TANF applicant containing credit trade lines does not involve any calculation.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 129. The former statement is of minimal relevance because Petitioner has not advanced an anticipation ground for claims 4, 9, and 15, and Patent Owner does not explain how Mr. Gray’s observation diminishes Petitioner’s argument that it “would have been well within the knowledge of a [person of skill in the art] at the time of the invention to program a computer to calculate [a debt to 2 Patent Owner’s citations to Ex. 1006 in connection with this argument appear to be typographical errors. income ratio] using debt data and income data” in light of Mr. Spruiell’s testimony. Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 16). The latter statement may be consistent with use of the TDHS System without calculation of the debt-toincome ratio, but does not controvert directly Mr. Spruiell’s testimony that caseworkers performed such a calculation in some instances. Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 4, 9, and 15 would have been obvious over the TDHS System.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,185,408 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,185,408
• Search America, Inc. v. Transunion Intelligence, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 3, 2015 · CBM2013-00037 · APJ Patrick M Boucher · CBM · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable: the TDHS System anticipates claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–14; the asserted obviousness grounds and written-description ground also succeed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “First, Patent Owner contends that the plain meaning of “derived” to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application was “obtained by reasoning” or “calculated.” Id. In support of this contention, Patent Owner cites the Declaration of Stephen Gray,1 which refers to one of the definitions provided by Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 4th ed., Ballantine Books (New York 2001). Ex. 2002 ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 2002E). But as Petitioner points out, Mr. Gray refers to the last definition in the dictionary entry, although the first definition provided for the word “derive” is “to receive or get from a source.” Reply 4. Second, Patent Owner refers to a statement in the specification of the ’937 patent that “the debt to income ratio can be computed,” reasoning that “one of ordinary skill would understand that the credit information input into the method of claim 1 could not have been mere data taken from a credit report but rather would have been the result of some calculation or computation.” PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 65–66; Ex. 2002 ¶ 104). We disagree with Patent Owner’s reasoning, because the statement in the specification merely provides an example of a calculation. Furthermore, as Petitioner observes, Patent Owner’s position is untenable because the context of the identified statement refers to calculation of “qualification 1 As discussed below, we deny Petitioner’s motion to exclude the Gray Declaration. criteria” rather than of “credit information.” See Reply 5. The claim’s text distinguishes between “qualification criteria” and “credit information.” In addition, and as Petitioner also observes, the prosecution history supports that credit information need not be calculated to be input. See id.” slip op. at 9

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

    “a credit report of the patient.” Petitioner contends that the Data Broker module obtained a computerized report on each applicant at the request of an eligibility worker, extracted certain credit information, and combined the extracted credit information with data about the applicant to provide a combined report to the eligibility worker for viewing in the TDHS System. Pet. 38. Patent Owner contends that the credit information extracted from the computerized report is not “credit information derived from a credit report” (emphasis added). PO Resp. 20–21. We disagree. In accordance with our construction of “derived” as “received from a source,” we conclude that the Data Broker module inputs “credit information derived from a credit report.”” slip op. at 19

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

    “Patent Owner responds the “Belford has nothing to do with providing financial assistance for medical care of financially needy people” and that “Petitioner provides no reasoning why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teaching of a reference that discusses providing loans to people that have the ability to pay (credit worthiness) with needy people that cannot pay (charity).” PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner characterizes the relevant disclosures too narrowly. Belford is reasonably pertinent to the problem identified by Petitioner, namely the need for a patient to pay some amount even after receiving financial assistance. See In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Identification of the problem and how it is solved by Belford provides sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). We conclude that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 9 would have been obvious over the TDHS System and Belford.” slip op. at 27

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Evidence of commercial success, or other secondary considerations, is only significant if there is a nexus between the claimed invention and the commercial success.” Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2006). To establish a proper nexus, Patent Owner must offer “proof that the sales were a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention—as opposed to other economic and commercial factors unrelated to the quality of the patented subject matter.” In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 7,333,937 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,333,937

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.