• Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2016 · PGR2015-00018 · APJ Richard E Rice · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8, and 10–14 are unpatentable as indefinite under § 112(b); the Board did not reach the § 103(a) grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) “would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in science or engineering.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 10–13; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 10–13). Patent Owner responds that “the Board should limit Petitioner’s overly broad definition of a POSA from having an associate’s degree in any science or engineering to having an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 12. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner’s proposed definition should be limited because the inclusion of persons with an associate’s degree in any science or engineering fails to take into account the scope of the relevant art, which indisputably utilizes mechanical engineering principles.” Id. Upon consideration of the parties’ contentions, we determine that a POSA would have been a person having a general knowledge about and experience with expandable containers, including without limitation balloons, and at least an associate’s degree in mechanical engineering, or the equivalent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “1. “elastic fastener” In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification of the claim term “elastic fastener” is an elastic element for attaching things together. Inst. Dec. 7–8. As neither party proposes any change to our interpretation, and our review of the evidence does not indicate that any change is necessary, we maintain that interpretation.” slip op. at 8

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteUnpatentable

    “We determine that the test for indefiniteness that is applied in patent examination and reexamination matters, approved in Packard, should be applied in this post-grant review AIA proceeding, rather than the Nautilus requirement. The different approaches to indefiniteness before the PTO and the courts stem from the distinct roles that the PTO and the courts play in the patent system.12 In AIA proceedings, as in patent examination and reexamination matters, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, coupled with an opportunity to amend the claims, is an approach that is fair to the patent holder and protects the public. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2145–46; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1312–14. This approach serves to ensure precision in patent claims, thereby helping the public to understand the limits of the claims and keeping the rights afforded by patents within their legitimate scope. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2144–45; Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313. Accordingly, among the reasons supporting application of the Packard-approved indefiniteness test in this AIA proceeding are those recognized by the Supreme Court in Cuozzo as supporting use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in inter partes review AIA proceedings. See Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2143–2146. Of these, the most important is the opportunity to amend the claims to correct any ambiguity. See id. at 2145 (“The patent holder may, at least once in the process, make a motion to do just what he would do in the examination process, namely, necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear.” 12 See Packard, 751 F.3d at 1325 (Plager, J., concurring) (stating that “unlike courts which have a full prosecution record to consider, the prosecution record before the USPTO is in development and not fixed during examination”). amend or narrow the claim.”) (citation omitted); 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.221. An applicant’s ability to clarify claim language through amendment was a significant reason why the Federal Circuit in Packard approved of the indefiniteness test recited in the MPEP (i.e., a “claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear”). Packard, 751 F.3d at 1313–14.” slip op. at 18

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “III. MOTIONS TO EXCUDE In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 57), Patent Owner seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Exhibits 1031 and 1032. Paper 57, 1–3. We deny Patent Owner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits in reaching our decision in this case. In its Motion to Exclude (Paper 59), Petitioner seeks to exclude Patent Owner’s Exhibits 2016–2018, 2020 (¶ 84), 2024, 2025 (¶ 39), 2026 (¶ 39), 2027–2070, 2073, 2074, 2078, and 2085. Paper 59, 1–8. We deny Petitioner’s motion, as moot, because we did not consider the referenced exhibits and paragraphs in reaching our decision in this case.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,051,066 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 9,051,066
• Valeo North America, Inc. / Valeo S.A. et al. v. Magna Electronics Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 22, 2016 · IPR2015-01410 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combinations listed in the Order.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “On December 28, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 15, 17, 19–52, 54–67, 69–79, and 81–86 on 17 grounds of unpatentability and consolidated Case IPR2015-01414 with Case IPR2015-01410 (Paper 7, “Dec. on Inst.”). Patent Owner Magna Electronics Inc. filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 14, “PO Resp.”), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 17, “Reply”). The parties did not request oral argument, and no hearing was held. See Paper 22.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments are not persuasive for three reasons. First, as explained above, to establish an earlier constructive reduction to practice, Patent Owner must show that the ’527 application provides sufficient written description support for the challenged claims. Patent Owner states that “each limitation of [the set of claims listed above] is supported in the ’935 patent disclosure,” but includes no substantive arguments in its Response explaining why. See id. Rather, Patent Owner cites 46 paragraphs of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration and a “Constructive Reduction to Practice Chart” spanning 43 pages. Id. (citing Ex. 2001; Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 54–99). Any arguments contained in these materials cannot be incorporated by reference into the Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”).12 Consequently, we do not consider information presented in the declaration or claim chart but not discussed sufficiently in the Response. Second, even if Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s analysis and the claim chart are considered, they are not sufficient. The claim chart provides only block 12 See also Paper 8, 3 (“The patent owner is cautioned that any arguments for patentability not raised in the response will be deemed waived.”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., Case CBM2014-00013, 8 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 37) (“Arguments that are not developed and presented in the Patent Owner Response, itself, are not entitled to consideration.”), reversed-in-part on other grounds, No. 2015-1703, -- F.3d --, 2016 WL 6958650 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, Case IPR2014-00454, 7–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (informative) (noting that “[o]ne purpose of the prohibition against incorporation by reference is to eliminate abuses” of the page limits established for the parties’ substantive papers, and that citing “large portions of another document, without sufficient explanation of those portions, amounts to incorporation by reference”). quotes and figures from the ’935 patent,13 but does not explain in any detail why they provide support for the various limitations of the challenged claims. See Ex. 2001. Likewise, the majority of Dr. Etienne-Cummings’s declaration merely states that “the features of [the respective claim] are disclosed” at the block-quoted portions of the ’935 patent, without explanation. See, e.g., Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 56–61, 64, 65, 67–74, 76–99. Third, we agree with Petitioner that the ’935 patent does not provide sufficient written description support for the independent claims of the ’724 patent (claims 1, 49, 65, and 78), each of which recites that the “synthesized image is displayed by a single display screen of a reconfigurable display device that is viewable by a driver of the equipped vehicle when normally operating the equipped vehicle.” See Reply 13–15. As explained above, we interpret “reconfigurable display” to mean a display in which a portion of the display upon which the driver views the synthesized image is used as a high-information content display to selectively display various types of auxiliary information. See supra Section II.A.4. Patent Owner cites various excerpts from the ’935 patent describing display 20, but these portions do not call the display device “reconfigurable” or disclose that it is used to selectively display information. See, e.g., Ex. 2001, 5–6 (citing Ex. 2002, col. 3, l. 61–col. 4, l. 5, col. 5, ll. 48–50, col. 6, ll. 5–12, 22–39); Ex. 2004 ¶ 56. Indeed, the ’724 patent Specification 13 It is unclear why Patent Owner attempts to map the disclosure of the ’935 patent, rather than the ’527 application, to the challenged claims. The ’935 patent issued on September 23, 1997 (after Yamamoto published), from the ’527 application filed on May 22, 1995 (before Yamamoto published). Patent Owner does not provide a copy of the ’527 application in the record to show that the written description is the same as that of the issued ’935 patent.” slip op. at 26

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

    “parallax or require that the problem of parallax be solved for the synthesized image. See supra Sections II.A.2–3. Rather, we interpret “synthesized image is generated without duplication of objects” to mean the synthesized image is generated with minimal multiple exposure of objects appearing in the overlap zones, and interpret “synthesized image approximates a view as would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the equipped vehicle” to mean the synthesized image is a nearly exact representation of what would be seen by a virtual camera at a single location exterior of the vehicle. Id. Thus, the claims allow for a “minimal” level of multiple exposure and only require a “nearly exact” representation of what the virtual camera would see. We are not persuaded that any parallax effects that might remain when the pattern recognition techniques of Mitsubishi are used in Yamamoto’s system, as Petitioner asserts, would cause more than “minimal” multiple exposure or prevent the resulting image from being a “nearly exact” representation. See Ex. 1020 ¶ 110; Ex. 1066 ¶ 25. Moreover, even if the resulting image in the combined system would suffer from some parallax effects, we do not see how that contradicts Petitioner’s asserted reason for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Yamamoto’s system, or why parallax concerns would have outweighed the advantage of improved image processing, such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have abandoned the three camera arrangement of Yamamoto. See Reply 15–17; Winner Int’l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1349 n.8 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“The fact that the motivating benefit comes at the expense of another benefit, however, should not nullify its use as a basis to modify the disclosure of one reference with the teachings of another. Instead, the benefits, both lost and gained, should be weighed against one another.”). In that respect, we find Dr. Wolberg’s analysis of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references’ teachings compelling. See Ex. 1020 ¶¶ 101–15; Ex. 1066 ¶¶ 22–37.” slip op. at 32

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “public accessibility. PO Resp. 17–21. Based on all of the evidence of record,18 however, we are persuaded that Wang was disseminated or otherwise made available prior to May 22, 1996, to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence could have located it. Most probative are the Library of Congress certification and Linda Hall Library documentation, which show that Wang was catalogued and readily available through these libraries. See Exs. 1046, 1060. Mr. Grenier further testifies that copies of the article were made available to attendees of the EURO ASIC ’91 conference, which was an IEEE academic conference pertaining to ASICs. See Ex. 1039; Ex. 1055; Ex. 1060, 2–13 (stating that the conference “includes reports on ASIC design experiences, advances in design methods and tools, and on the evolution of ASIC technology,” and is “the definitive place . . . for the academic community to exchange ideas”; listing numerous papers to be 18 We are persuaded that all of Petitioner’s evidence should be considered, including the evidence introduced with the Reply, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Further, during a conference call with the parties on May 26, 2016, Patent Owner sought authorization to file a motion to “strike” Petitioner’s new evidence and portions of Petitioner’s Reply. See Paper 20. We determined that a motion to strike was not appropriate at that time, but stated that “[s]hould either party request a hearing in this proceeding, . . . the parties may address the propriety of the exhibits and Petitioner’s Reply during oral argument. If the parties choose not to request a hearing, Patent Owner may request another conference call and we will determine whether additional briefing or any other action may be appropriate at that time.” Id. at 3; Ex. 1071, 20:14–22:18. Patent Owner did not request oral argument, and did not request another conference call to address the issue. presented relating to, for example, digital signal processing ASICs, chip architecture, and graphic application and image processing ASICs). Given the level of ordinary skill in the art of the ’724 patent set forth above, see supra Section II.B, we are persuaded that the EURO ASIC ’91 conference is the type of conference that ordinarily skilled artisans would have been interested in and likely attended. The dates and documentation for the conference also are consistent with the other submitted evidence, including the copyright notation of Wang itself, which states in part “© 1991 IEEE.” See Ex. 1009, 1. Finally, as Petitioner correctly points out, the first article cited by Dr. Wolberg shows that Wang in fact was accessed by some other individuals working in the field of image sensors. See Reply 12; Ex. 1040. Based on the record presented, we are persuaded that Wang is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 8,643,724 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,643,724
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 21, 2016 · IPR2015-01226 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • ExcludeNot reached

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

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

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,135,115 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,135,115
• Kamstrup A/S v. Apator Miitors ApsAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 20, 2016 · IPR2015-01403 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are anticipated by Nielsen; the remaining claims are unpatentable on the listed obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2142–46 (2016). Consistent with the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Only those terms that are in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The only term Petitioner asks us to construe is the term “seal” recited in claim 8. Pet. 21. Petitioner argues the term means a “legal” or “tamper-evident” seal. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation, and does not ask us to construe any claim terms. We decline to construe the term “seal” because it is not necessary to resolve any controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803. We need not expressly construe any other term, as the terms are deemed to have their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Skallebæk indicated his position as Senior Vice President for Petitioner. Ex. 1018 ¶ 1. He further declared that he had read the Petition and the Exhibits thereto, and swore that all statements in the Declaration were true and correct, and signed the Declaration. Id. ¶ 2. In his deposition, Mr. Skallebæk testified that although he receives an annual salary from Petitioner, his compensation is independent of the outcome of this proceeding. Ex. 2007, 16:10–17:20. The evidence does not show that Mr. Skallebæk has any other financial interest in the outcome of the case. We duly note the interest of Mr. Skallebæk as an Officer of Petitioner in our consideration and weighing of his testimony. See Ethicon Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We do not consider the fact that someone else first drafted Mr. Skallebæk’s Declaration, which he reviewed and signed, to diminish the credibility of his testimony in any way.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “In his Declaration, Mr. Drachmann declares a “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email and a “UFM++venture” file was attached to both the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–10. Although the body of the first Tunheim email refers to a mechanical meter assembly and indicates a sample is attached, there are no indicia in either the body or header of the email indicating a file is attached, let alone a file entitled “mechanics6.” See Ex. 2009, 1, 3. Thus, the only evidence that the “mechanics6” file was attached to the first Tunheim email is the Drachmann Declaration. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 5. Moreover, the only evidence that the first Tunheim email was actually sent to Mr. Tunheim is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶ 5. A similar analysis of the Bjerngaard and second Tunheim emails leads to a similar conclusion, i.e., that the only evidence that a “UFM++venture” file was attached to these emails, or that these emails were sent to their intended recipients is the Drachmann Declaration. Id. ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 2010 1, 3; Ex. 2011 1, 3. Patent Owner has provided no evidence corroborating Mr. Drachmann’s testimony on these points, such as a reply email from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard, or a declaration from Mr. Tunheim or Mr. Bjerngaard stating he had received the emails on the dates indicated. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 5–7. Moreover, even assuming the first and second Tunheim emails and the Bjerngaard email were sent on the dates indicated and included the “mechanics6” and “UFM++venture” files as attachments, this evidence by itself is insufficient to prove conception of the invention prior to March 22, 2010, because it does not show that the inventors were in possession of every element of the claims. For example, each of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 requires “a housing for the transducers and electronic circuit,” and neither the “mechanics6” file nor the “UFM++venture” file shows transducers located within a housing as required by the claims. See Ex. 2009, 4; Ex. 2010, 4–24; Ex. 2011, 54–74. As Petitioner correctly notes, although the devices are referred to as ultrasonic flowmeters in Exhibits 2010 and 2011, “the presence of ‘at least one ultrasonic transducer’ actually inside the device is not apparent in any of the Exhibits themselves, and could be located elsewhere in the fluid flow and still be fully consistent with the content of the Exhibits.” Pet. Reply 2–3. Patent Owner also relies on the “mechanics7” drawings to prove prior conception of independent claims 1, 12, and 13. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 14, 21, 22. Although these drawings show the transducers within the housing, Patent Owner presents no evidence indicating these drawings were shown to another person. See Coleman, 754 F.2d at 359 (“Conception must be proved by corroborating evidence which shows that the inventor disclosed to others his completed thought expressed in such clear terms as to enable those skilled in the art to make the invention”) (emphasis added) (internal quotations and citation omitted).” slip op. at 13

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

    “D. Unpatentability of Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 over Nielsen Petitioner argues Nielsen teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, and therefore, anticipates these claims. Pet. 49–53. Nielsen discloses an ultrasonic flow meter that can be used as either a water or gas meter. Ex. 1016 ¶ 28. The flow meter includes flow meter housing 120 with measuring tube 114, and an attached water tight casing that encloses printed circuit board 202 and transducers 206.5 Id. ¶ 35. Nielsen’s casing consists of top part 134 hermetically sealed to bottom membrane 132 via soldering, laser welding, or glue. Id. ¶¶ 35, 44. The bottom membrane 132 includes first and second recesses 236 for seating transducers 206, and flow meter housing 120 includes first and second holes for receiving the first and second recesses. Id. ¶ 38. Bracing 116 is provided to lock the casing to housing 120 via one or more screws. Id. ¶ 40. 5 Petitioner maps Nielsen’s flow meter housing 120 (which includes measuring tube 114) to the claimed “flow channel,” and Nielsen’s water-tight casing (which contains a circuit board and transducers) to the claimed “housing.” See Pet. 50; Ex. 1016 ¶ 35. Figure 2 of Nielsen is reproduced below. Figure 2 is an exploded view of an ultrasonic flow meter as taught by Nielsen. Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of evidence, that Nielsen discloses each of the limitations required by claims 1, 2, 6, and 7. See Pet. 49–53. Based on Nielsen’s disclosure, discussed supra, we find Petitioner’s analysis persuasive and adopt it as our own. Patent Owner does not contest” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 8,893,559 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,893,559
• Kite Pharma, Inc. v. Sloan Kettering Institute For Cancer ResearchNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2016 · IPR2015-01719 · APJ Elizabeth A Lavier · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 were not held unpatentable because Kite did not prove the asserted obviousness grounds; the Board found no persuasive rationale to combine the references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The parties generally agree9 that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention10 would have had an advanced degree in immunology, cell biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, or a related discipline, along with knowledge and experience in the field of T cell research, including laboratory techniques. See Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 100811 ¶ 12); PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 202212 ¶ 25; Ex. 1008 ¶ 12). In light of the parties’ general agreement on this point, we adopt that description of the level of ordinary 9 However, Sloan disputes (see PO Resp. 9) Kite’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “taken advantage of certain specialized skills” while working as part of a team (Pet. 34). As these specialties (see Pet. 34 (“[f]or example, an immunologist, a cell biologist, and a clinical oncologist”)) are in disciplines within the ambit of the relevant art of T cell research, we discern no meaningful distinction in the parties’ positions on this issue. 10 The application leading to the ’190 patent was filed on May 28, 2003. Ex. 1001, at [22].” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION In our decision instituting inter partes review, we determined it was not necessary to construe expressly any of the claim terms. Dec. Inst. 6. Upon consideration of the full record, express construction remains unnecessary. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting claim terms require construction “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). Indeed, neither the Response nor the Reply directly addresses claim construction, and the parties did not focus on claim construction issues during the oral hearing.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Central to any allegation of obviousness is that the proponent must establish that the prior art renders the invention obvious as claimed. Cf. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (discussing various considerations important in determining “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue”). Here, Kite’s rationale (1), as presented in the Petition, does not distinguish expressly between the advantages of Krause’s CD28 sequence versus Finney’s, or explain why one of ordinary skill in the art, in developing a dual-signaling chimeric TCR to target GD2, would have been motivated to retain Krause’s 13 CD28 sequence over Finney’s when combining the two references. Accordingly, rationale (1) is deficient on its face. However, if we impute the alleged advantages of Krause’s CD28 sequence as discussed with respect to rationales (2) and (3) to rationale (1),15 then rationale (1) rises or falls with rationale (2).16” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundDecided for patent owner

    “Although, as Kite notes, Sloan cites no prior art evidence about off- target binding concerns specifically in regard to the MYPPPY motif (see Pet. Reply 11), Sloan’s teach-away argument is nonetheless persuasive. Sloan’s argument is based on a reasonable inference from the understanding in the art at the time of the invention that (1) the MYPPPY motif of CD28’s extracellular sequence played a key role in ligand binding (as discussed above), and (2) possible ligand binding other than to the scFv, i.e., off-target binding, was a known, problematic design concern for chimeric TCRs.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 7,446,190 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,446,190
• Canon Inc. / Canon U.S.A., Inc. et al. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KGInstitution denied
  PTAB · Dec 15, 2016 · IPR2016-01223 · APJ Jennifer S Bisk · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–25, 27–30, 33, and 35 were unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). In that regard, Dr. Reynolds testifies that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two [years of] experience in studying or developing computer interfaces or peripherals.” Ex. 1306 ¶ 40. Dr. Reynolds further testifies that such an artisan also would have been “familiar with operating systems (e.g., MS-DOS, Windows, Unix) and their associated file systems (e.g., a [file allocation table (“FAT”)] file system), device drivers for computer components and peripherals (e.g., mass storage device drivers), and communication interfaces (e.g., SCSI and PCMCIA interfaces).” Id. Patent Owner confirms that Petitioner’s statements regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art are mostly consistent with Patent Owner’s view, but nonetheless contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have at least three years of experience, or, alternatively, five or more years of experience without a bachelor’s degree. Prelim. Resp. 19. We do not observe any meaningful differences between the parties’ definition of a 7 person of ordinary skill in the art. Our analysis in this Decision is supported by either level of skill. We further find that the prior art (e.g., Ex. 1305) in the instant proceeding reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We note that only those claim terms and elements which are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The parties propose constructions for several claim terms. Pet. 17–19; Prelim. Resp. 16–17, 20–28. For purposes of this Decision, however, we do not find it necessary to address explicitly any claim term.” slip op. at 8

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

    “unpatentable under § 102(b) as anticipated by McNeill. For the same reasons discussed above in relation to the obviousness challenges to claims 1–25, 27–30, and 33, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for any of the challenged claims. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging claims 1–25, 27–30, 33, and 35 of the ’746 patent. We, therefore, decline to institute inter partes review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. IV. ORDER It is ordered that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that “Petitioners fail to identify where McNeill discloses an analog signal acquisition channel” (Prelim. Resp. 36) and does not show that “this missing element must inherently, i.e., necessarily, be present based on McNeill’s disclosure” (id. at 39). We agree with Patent Owner and determine that Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that McNeill discloses or would have made obvious an “analog signal acquisition channel” as required by claim 1. Id. at 40. In its analysis of the data acquisition channels, Petitioner states only that “McNeill discloses that the target system can emulate any type of peripheral” one type of which is a scanner. Pet. 35. According to Petitioner “[i]t is implicit and inherent for a scanner to have an analog signal acquisition channel for receiving a signal from analog source.” Id. Petitioner goes on to assert that a typical scanner, as of the priority date, would produce a digital representation of an image and transmit that image “to an interface device (e.g. McNeill’s target computer) across a peripheral device communications channel, such as a SCSI bus or a parallel bus conforming to the IEEE 1284 standard.” Id. (citing Ex. 1306 ¶ 98). Nothing 10 in this analysis, however, explains how the communications channel is an analog data acquisition channel. Nor does Petitioner point to anything else in McNeill that it is relying on for disclosure of such an analog data acquisition channel. Id. Finally, Petitioner does not sufficiently explain why a person of ordinary skill would find the addition of an analog data acquisition channel obvious in light of the teachings of McNeill. See Pet. 35. Petitioner’s only discussion of this issue confusingly states that “[a]dding an analog sensor to the ‘exemplary system’ of McNeill is inherent, but if it is not, a POSITA would find it obvious to do so.” Id. The ’746 patent, however, does not use the term “sensor” in the claims. Ex. 1301. And Petitioner does not explain how an “analog sensor” relates to an “analog signal acquisition channel.” Id. Even assuming that a person of ordinary skill would find obvious adding an “analog sensor” based on McNeill’s disclosure, it is unclear why or how that would result in “an analog signal acquisition channel,” and it is Petitioner’s burden to provide sufficiently articulated reasoning for the alleged modification of McNeill resulting in an “analog signal acquisition channel.”” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,504,746
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01359 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 5–7 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish that Hiroi taught the claimed voice delay for synchronizing voice and text.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “address the qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art, but instead assert only that the relevant field of endeavor for the ’426 patent is “telephone communications.” PO Resp. 2; Ex. 2098 ¶ 25. This contention appears to relate to Patent Owner’s argument that Hiroi is not analogous art rather than to the level of ordinary skill in the art for assessing obviousness. See PO Resp. 36–49; Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 123–41. Thus, Patent Owner and its expert do not expressly dispute the level of skill in the art proffered by Petitioner and Mr. Occhiogrosso. In addition, although he does not offer his own opinion regarding the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art, Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition and states that unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed in his declaration testimony would not change under Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition. Ex. 2098 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 29). Based on our review of the record, including the experts’ testimony, the ’426 patent, and the prior art involved in this proceeding, we find that Petitioner’s proposal, as set forth by Mr. Occhiogrosso, accurately describes the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “patent according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016) (holding that 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) “represents a reasonable exercise of the rulemaking authority that Congress delegated to the Patent Office”). Consistent with the broadest reasonable construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). An inventor may provide a meaning for a term that is different from its ordinary meaning by defining the term in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction of “assisted user,” recited in claims 1 and 5, as “a user who may be deaf or hard of hearing, but who also may be a normally hearing person who simply wants text assistance for some reason.” Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner does not challenge that construction. After considering the complete record, we maintain this construction of “assisted user” for this Final Written Decision. No other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 5

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s contentions as to how the combination of Engelke ’482 and Engelke ’405 teaches the identified limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 21–30. We also determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have combined Engelke ’482 and Engelke ’405 in the manner asserted. In particular, we agree with Petitioner that combining the disclosure in Engelke ’405 of sending both voice and text to an assisted user who is hard of hearing with the re-voicing relay of Engelke ’482, which only provides text to an assisted user, would have been the application of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, and a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See Pet. 37–42, 44–45 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 416; Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 62–69).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 6,493,426 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,493,426
• Captioncall, L.L.C. v. Ultratec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 14, 2016 · IPR2015-01357 · APJ Lynne E Pettigrew · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 1 was not shown unpatentable because the asserted combination did not establish that Hiroi taught or motivated the claimed voice delay.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “address the qualifications of one of ordinary skill in the art, but instead assert only that the relevant field of endeavor for the ’366 patent is “telephone communications.” PO Resp. 2; Ex. 2098 ¶ 25. This contention appears to relate to Patent Owner’s argument that Hiroi is not analogous art rather than to the level of ordinary skill in the art for assessing obviousness. See PO Resp. 35–48; Ex. 2098 ¶¶ 122–40. Thus, Patent Owner and its expert do not expressly dispute the level of skill in the art proffered by Petitioner and Mr. Occhiogrosso. In addition, although he does not offer his own opinion regarding the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art, Mr. Zatkovich acknowledges Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition and states that unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed in his declaration testimony would not change under Mr. Occhiogrosso’s definition. Ex. 2098 ¶ 25 (citing Ex. 1012 ¶ 29). Based on our review of the record, including the experts’ testimony, the ’366 patent, and the prior art involved in this proceeding, we find that Petitioner’s proposal, as set forth by Mr. Occhiogrosso, accurately describes the qualifications of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Mr. Occhiogrosso’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed construction of “assisted user” as “a user who may be deaf or hard of hearing, but who also may be a normally hearing person who simply wants text assistance for some reason.” Dec. 5–6. Patent Owner does not challenge that construction. After considering the complete record, we maintain this construction of “assisted user” for this Final Written Decision. No other claim terms require express construction.” slip op. at 6

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “Under the circumstances in this case, we need not assess the merits of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude. As discussed above, even without excluding Mr. Occhiogrosso’s testimony, we have determined that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 6,934,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,934,366
• Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A De C.V. v. Honeywell International, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01309 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 16, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7–9, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner propose constructions for all, or a portion of, the term “Formula I, XCF3(I), where X is a C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical.” Pet. 17–19 (proposing a construction for the term “C2 unsaturated, substituted, alkyl radical”); PO Resp. 12–15. Neither party contends, however, that express construction of this claim term, or any other term in the ’808 patent, would impact any of Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s arguments in this proceeding. Accordingly, we determine that no claim terms require construction for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “art. Patent Owner, relying upon the testimony of Dr. Bivens, asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had either: “(1) a bachelor of science degree in a specialty area (such as chemical engineering or chemistry) and five years of work experience in developing/testing refrigerants, blowing agents, and propellants, or (2) a Ph.D. or masters of science degree and 2-3 years of work experience.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2034 ¶¶ 21–24). Patent Owner’s identification of a person of ordinary skill in the art is uncontroverted and is consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Patent Owner’s identification for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect the level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 8

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

    “Accordingly, we are persuaded that: (1) Petitioner has identified where every limitation of claim 1 is disclosed or suggested in the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler; (2) Petitioner has set forth reasoned explanations supported by factual underpinnings to explain why one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest filing date of the ’808 patent, would have sought to combine Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the invention set forth in claim 1 of the ’808 patent; and (3) Petitioner has set forth reasoned arguments, supported by record evidence, to show why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler to achieve the composition of claim 1.” slip op. at 17

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

    “patent met a long-felt but unresolved need or were commercially successful, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence to demonstrate these propositions. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18 (noting that “long felt but unsolved needs” and commercial success may be utilized as indicia of nonobviousness). Indeed, we have been directed to no persuasive evidence that a mixture of CO2 and a fluoroalkene of claim 1 has ever been used commercially, or that such a mixture was considered by those of ordinary skill in the art to have met a long felt but previously unresolved need.9, 10 See Tr. 51:24–52:7; Pet. Reply 9 (asserting that Patent Owner “has provided no evidence, post- or pre- issuance of the ’808 patent, of the commercial advantages or uses of the claimed compositions”). With respect to Petitioner’s prior patent applications, although Patent Owner initially characterizes these applications as relating to CO2 and partially fluorinated hydrocarbons, Patent Owner later notes that these patents are directed to blends of HFO-1234yf, CO2, and R-134a. PO Resp. 44; Ex. 2024, 12 (arguing in support of patentability that “[t]he specific 9 To be relevant, Patent Owner must show that the asserted secondary considerations are attributable to “the merits of the claimed invention beyond what was readily available in the prior art.” Asyst Techs. v. Emtrak, Inc., 544 F.3d 1310, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Inagaki discloses using compounds within the scope of claim 1 of the ’808 patent as refrigerants. Patent Owner presents no persuasive evidence that the addition of CO2 to the compounds of Inagaki, or the particular ranges recited in claim 1, resulted in a product that met a long felt but unresolved need or resulted in a commercially successful product beyond what was provided in Inagaki. Thus, we are also not persuaded that there is any nexus between the asserted secondary considerations and the features of claim 1 that are not disclosed in Inagaki. 10 As Patent Owner has not demonstrated any commercial use of the claim 1 compounds for any purpose, or provided evidence that those of skill in the art considered the claimed compounds to have met an unresolved need in the art, this analysis applies equally to the dependent claims of the ’808 patent, which each depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. combination of trans-R1234ze and R134a and CO2 simply is not suggested in Singh, let alone in the amounts defined in claim 1”). Patent Owner does not explain sufficiently why Petitioner’s arguments directed to the patentability of a blend of three compounds, utilized in specific proportions, are necessarily applicable to the combination of Kruse, Inagaki, and Butler proposed by Petitioner, or why these arguments are otherwise strong evidence of the nonobviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent. Based on the foregoing, and upon review of Patent Owner’s arguments as a whole, we are not persuaded that Patent Owner’s proffered objective evidence of nonobviousness is strong or tends to refute Petitioner’s arguments and evidence with respect to the obviousness of claim 1 of the ’808 patent.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 8,623,808 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,623,808
• Global Tel*link Corporation v. Securus Technologies, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2016 · IPR2015-01219 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

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

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

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

  • ExcludeNot reached

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

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

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

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

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

  Patent outcomesUS 8,626,118 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,626,118

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.