• Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLCRehearing granted
  PTAB · 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 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 5,806,062
• Cxloyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Enfish
  Patents in suitUS 7,134,087
• Bally Gaming, Inc., Dba Bally Technologies v. New Vision Gaming & Development, Inc.Rehearing denied
  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 eligibility
  Patents in suitUS 7,451,987
• Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,336,307
• HTC Corporation / HTC America, Inc. et al. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,553,935
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. M & K Holdings Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,191,673
• Unified Patents Inc. v. Sound View Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2019 · IPR2018-00599 · APJ Debra K Stephens · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 3 and 9 are unpatentable under § 103 because the cited combinations teach the claimed limitations that the Board found limiting.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related subject, and two or three years of work experience with network-based applications and/or multimedia applications. A lack of experience can be remedied with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, a lack of education can be remedied with additional work experience (e.g., 6-7 years) (Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 38)). Patent Owner does not dispute the educational level or experiential aspects of Petitioner’s definition in its Response (see generally PO Resp.; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20). We note that the assessment appears consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art in the instant proceeding (see Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355). Based on our review of the ’074 Patent, the types of problems and solutions described in the ’074 Patent and cited prior art, and the testimony of Drs. Reddy and Jones (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 19–20), we determine a skilled artisan would have possessed a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or an equivalent field, and two or three years of work experience with content delivery networks or applications or comparable education or work experience in the field.” slip op. at 9

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

    “a. “helper server” The ’074 patent describes “helper server” in the following terms: “Helper Server (HS): a HS, also referred to as a helper, is one of a plurality of servers in the network that provide certain value-added services” (Ex. 1001, 4:11–13). Accordingly, we adopt this interpretation.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that neither claim 3 nor claim 9 recites where the “receiving” step takes place and, in particular, neither claim recites “receiving said SM object” at the plurality of or one of the helper servers. [C]laim terms cannot be narrowed by reference to the written description or prosecution history unless the language of the claims invites reference to those sources. See, e.g., McCarty v. Lehigh Val. R.R., 160 U.S. 110, 116, 16 S. Ct. 240, (1895) (“[I]f we once begin to include elements not mentioned in the claim in order to limit such claim ..., we should never know where to stop.”); Renishaw [PLC v. Marposs Societa per Azioni], 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 [(Fed. Cir. 1998)]. In other words, there must be a textual reference in the actual language of the claim with which to associate a proffered claim construction (Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–90 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Here, we do not find a textual reference in “receiving said SM object.” We determine that the inventors did not introduce their own lexicographic definition, i.e., defining the term “receiving said SM object” or “receiving.” Furthermore, we are not persuaded “the term or terms chosen by the patentee[s] so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used” (see id. at 990 (citations omitted)). Nor do the preambles of claim 3 and 9, respectively, provide any textual reference that “receiving said SM object” should be interpreted as “receiving said SM object at a helper server.” Thus, “[i]n this case, the [disputed term] has a clear and well-defined meaning. This term is not so amorphous that one of skill in the art can only reconcile the claim language with the inventor’s disclosure by recourse to the specification” (Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s assessment of the preambles of claims 3 and 9. The preamble of claim 3 recites: A method for storing a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of helper servers (HSs) to a plurality of clients, said SM object being comprised of a plurality of successive time-ordered chunks, wherein a chunk is further comprised of a discrete number of segments, each segment allocated to a respective disk block of said plurality of HSs, and the preamble of claim 9 recites: A method for managing storage of a streaming media (SM) object in a network having a content server which hosts SM objects for distribution over said network through a plurality of servers to a plurality of clients (Ex. 1001, Claims). Neither of the preambles recites that storage depends on the availability of disk space. Patent Owner additionally points to Reactive Surfaces Ltd., LLP v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914, Paper 64 at 11–14 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2018) (PO Resp. 10). Claim 1 of Reactive Surfaces recites:” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,462,074 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,462,074
• Triple Plus Ltd. v. Mordechai Ben OldAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 16, 2019 · PGR2018-00038 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · PGR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 is unpatentable as obvious over the Triple+ NWL, including the obvious substitution of a butterfly valve for its ball valve.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. Petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability of the challenged claim, and the burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision is issued” slip op. at 2

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “subject declaration was filed as Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response. Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response states: “Patent Owner, Mordechai Ben Old, hereby submits the following preliminary response in the form of declaration.” Paper 7, 2. To the extent Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response/declaration would be given any weight post-institution, we agree with Petitioner that it would be considered routine discovery and that Patent Owner was required to make himself available for deposition. See Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,761 (“Routine discovery includes: . . . (2) the cross-examination of the other side[’]s declarants . . . .”). Patent Owner did not do so. Additionally, the record reflects that Patent Owner has continued to fail to participate in this proceeding. In particular, Patent Owner did not respond to our Order specifying “that Patent Owner shall appear . . . on or before May 30, 2019, and show cause as to why adverse judgment should not be issued against Patent Owner for abandonment of the contest pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(4).” Paper 14, 3. Accordingly, in light of Patent Owner’s failure to participate in the proceeding by appearing for a deposition by Petitioner or otherwise, we agree that the appropriate remedy is to exclude Patent Owner’s declaration, submitted as its Preliminary Response (Paper 7). Thus, to the extent we would have considered Patent Owner’s declaration at this post-institution stage of the proceeding, we decline to do so.3” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had: “a Bachelor of Science degree in a field of engineering or a closely related discipline, and at least one year of practical academic or industrial experience designing, testing and/or manufacturing fluid control valves.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 28–30). As discussed above, Patent Owner did not file a Response. We reiterate our preliminary finding from the Decision on Institution, that, consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record, we adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner based on the present record. See Dec. on Inst. 10; 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).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “one exception that the Triple+ NWL includes a ball valve whereas claim 1 requires a butterfly. See id. at 32–63; see also id. at 31 (“the Triple+ NWL discloses every element of claim 1 except for the choice of quarter turn rotary valve type,” i.e., the claimed butterfly valve). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he ball valve is interchangeable with the claimed ‘butterfly,’ and it would have been obvious to [a person of ordinary skill in the art] to substitute one for the other.” Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40, 56–57). Petitioner relies upon Dr. Johnson’s testimony in support of this position. See, e.g., id. at 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). In particular, Petitioner states: a ball valve (like in the Triple+ NWL) is a member of the same family of valves as the butterfly. Except for the shape of the valve member, both are functionally and operationally identical, and both can and were used as shut-off valves for main water lines entering a residence or other structure. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–40). Petitioner asserts that “[t]he Triple+ NWL used a ball valve and was intended for use as a shut-off valve on the main water line.” Id. at 37. Petitioner thus contends that: (1) this use for any quarter turn rotary valve type was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art, id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–40); (2) “replacing a ball valve with a butterfly valve was a ‘simple design choice and an obvious replacement’” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 37–38 (quoting Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56– 57); and (3) “[s]ubstituting one known type of a valve for another— particularly within the same family of valves such as the quarter turn rotary valve family—is the epitome of an obvious design choice” to a person of ordinary skill in the art, id. at 38 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 421).7” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 9,671,031 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,671,031
• Rust-Oleum Corporation / RPM International, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 23, 2019 · IPR2017-02158 · APJ Christopher G Paulraj · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board accepted Patent Owners’ rehearing request as timely but denied rehearing, finding no overlooked or misapprehended issue requiring modification of the final written decision.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “layer is being removed (i.e., Example 1). Id. at 2–3. We are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the evidence of record regarding whether Baumgärtel requires the use of pigments for rejuvenation. As we noted in our Final Written Decision, Example 1 of Baumgärtel does not mention the use of any pigments yet discusses the removal of the yellowed/damaged surface layer of white siding using a composition containing 99% dichloromethane. Paper 29, 42. Although the amendment in the Proposed Substitute Claims required both color and luster to be restored, it did not otherwise modify our construction of “rejuvenating,” which encompasses either “remov[ing] or transform[ing] the chalky surface that develops on vinyl siding that is exposed to sunlight and other environmental conditions.” Id. at 15 (emphasis added). The teaching in Baumgärtel’s Example 1 of removing the surface layer using a 99% dichloromethane solution satisfies our construction of “rejuvenating.” We, therefore, did not misapprehend or overlook Patent Owners’ evidence and arguments in determining that Example 1 of Baumgärtel anticipates the Proposed Substitute Claims.” slip op. at 7

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3), “[a] late action will be excused on a showing of good cause or upon a Board decision that consideration on the merits would be in the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) (emphasis added). Patent Owners have presented evidence tending to show that their counsel believed that the Request for Rehearing was timely filed on May 8, 2019. See Exs. 2011–2013. It does not appear, however, that they attached any document with their filing before clicking the submit button on PTAB E2E. In this regard, we note that the email generated by the PTAB E2E system and sent to counsel of record on May 8, 2019 clearly stated “THERE WERE NO DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED WITH THIS REQUEST.” Ex. 3001. Patent Owners have not explained why they did not take immediate action after receiving that email to determine whether the Request for Rehearing was actually filed.1 Indeed, Patent Owners remained” slip op. at 4

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingDecided for petitioner

    “http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp#heading-5 (emphasis added). 2 We are also not persuaded that the filing of a Notice of Appeal (Paper 33) by Patent Owners divested the Board of jurisdiction to decide the merits of the Request for Rehearing. The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 1995), is instructive on this point. There, the applicant had filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit after the Board entered its initial decision but before the Board’s decision on a request for reconsideration. Id. at 1150. Because the notice of appeal was filed too late if based on the initial decision, the court determined that the Board’s initial” slip op. at 5

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureNot reached

    “misapprehended evidence and arguments showing that Dr. Storey’s experiment was not based on Example 1 of Baumgärtel, and thus insufficient for Petitioners to meet their burden of showing inherent anticipation. Ex. 2010, 4–6. But, as set forth in our Final Written Decision, we fully considered the evidence of record and determined that the experiments conducted by Dr. Storey further support a finding of inherent anticipation by Baumgärtel. Paper 29, 43 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶¶ 12–36). We recognized that the 99.5% pure dichloromethane used by Dr. Storey for his experiments did not include the 1% of additional ingredients identified in Example 1, but took into account Dr. Storey’s unrebutted testimony that those additional ingredients in such small proportions would not have materially affected the rejuvenation characteristics of dichloromethane. Id. at 43–44 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 81–82). As we noted, Patent Owners did not cross-examine Dr. Storey as to his declaration testimony in this proceeding; nor did Patent Owners’ expert Dr. Grulke address these points in his own declaration. Id. at 44. Thus, we are not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked the cited testimony of Dr. Storey regarding inherent anticipation.” slip op. at 7

  § 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 6,669,991
• Dispersive Networks, Inc. v. Nicira, Inc.Rehearing granted
  PTAB · Jul 17, 2019 · PGR2018-00063 · APJ Debra K Stephens · PGR · Rehearing

  Patent Owner’s rehearing request was granted as to claim 7, which was removed from institution under § 112(b); institution on claims 1–6 and 8–11 remained unchanged.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, grantedRehearing, deniedGranted in part

    “We agree. We erroneously instituted review of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We modify our Decision to the extent that we do not institute on claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). That is, we institute a post-grant review of claims 1–6 and 8–11 of the ’815 Patent on the challenge that these claims are indefinite and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree. We erroneously instituted review of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). We modify our Decision to the extent that we do not institute on claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). That is, we institute a post-grant review of claims 1–6 and 8–11 of the ’815 Patent on the challenge that these claims are indefinite and unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).” slip op. at 10

  None
  Patents in suitUS 9,722,815

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.