- PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01166 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 would have been obvious over Ikeda and Puthuff.
RulingsInstitution decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three years of industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. (Ex. 1002 ¶28.) Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience. (Id.)” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction We need only construe terms that are in controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet Ikeda notes that it is difficult to command the adaptive filter’s learning “depending on the situation in which the noise canceler is located.” See Ex. 1003, 3:40–54 (emphasis added). We emphasize “depending on the situation” here because it indicates that Ikeda does not necessarily criticize all outside sensors, in all situations. See id. Rather, Ikeda’s discussion of outside sensors refers to the sensors that were discussed in the background of the invention and under the specific conditions described in that section. See id. at 1:4–3:54, quoted in Prelim. Resp. 4. For example, in the part quoted by Patent Owner that allegedly teaches away, Ikeda explains that with conventional sensors “a sufficient noise canceling ability and a sufficient distortion correction characteristic are not achievable unless adequate learning sections are indicated to each adaptive filter for the learning purpose.” Id. That is, Ikeda identifies a particular type of sensor: “conventional noise cancelers.” See id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, Petitioner’s assertions are adequately supported. Pet. 31–34. The cited part of Puthuff, for instance, explains that its system improves “immunity to false triggering due to noisy environments.” Ex. 1004, 3:19–24, 6:6–10. We credit the testimony of Dr. Richard Stern, which is consistent with this teaching. Ex. 1002 ¶ 91. At this stage, the Petition sufficiently explains how Ikeda’s and Puthuff’s systems are similar and how both are concerned with solving the same problem. See Pet. 31–36.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,019,091 - PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01154 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 and all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 11 would have been obvious over Ikeda and Puthuff; it dismissed joinder as moot.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons discussed in this Decision, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition, and we have not been provided a sufficient reason to exercise our discretion to deny institution. Thus, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet Ikeda notes that it is difficult to command the adaptive filter’s learning “depending on the situation in which the noise canceler is located.” See Ex. 1003, 3:40–54 (emphasis added). We emphasize “depending on the situation” here because it indicates that Ikeda does not necessarily criticize all outside sensors, in all situations. See id. Rather, Ikeda’s discussion of outside sensors refers to the sensors that were discussed in the background of the invention and under the specific conditions described in that section. See id. at 1:4–3:54, quoted in Prelim. Resp. 4. For example, in the part quoted by Patent Owner that allegedly teaches away, Ikeda explains that with conventional sensors “a sufficient noise canceling ability and a sufficient distortion correction characteristic are not achievable unless adequate learning sections are indicated to each adaptive filter for the learning purpose.” Id. That is, Ikeda identifies a particular type of sensor: “conventional noise cancelers.” See id. Also, Ikeda’s “Background of the Invention” Section provides specific discussion of a conventional noise canceler, which is shown in Figure 5, reproduced below. See id. at 1:43. In Figure 5, the conventional noise canceler has a main signal microphone 1, a reference signal microphone 2, an adaptive filter 3, a subtracter 4, and an output terminal. Id. at 1:42–46. The conventional noise canceler updates the adaptive filter’s coefficient and learns the acoustic characteristic of noise in sections where the noise signal N(z) is present and the desired signal component S(z) is absent or negligibly small. Id. at 3:32–36. Ikeda teaches using this conventional sensor to detect the absence of a desired signal component. Id. at 3:32–45. In the context of discussing this sensor, Ikeda explains that “it is, in many cases, difficult to command the adaptive filters to perform learning from the outside in accordance with the level of the desired signal and that of the noise signal, depending on the situation in which the noise canceler is located.” Id. at 3:46–50. At this stage and on this record, we preliminarily determine that the cited part of Ikeda refers to the limitations of this conventional sensor—not all outside sensors, generally. according to Petitioner, Ikeda teaches multiple alternative options for detecting the absence of a desired signal component. See Pet. 21–22. For instance, Ikeda proposes using a signal-to-noise power ratio estimator. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 4:49–56, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Ikeda explains that, with the estimator, the noise canceler “insures rapid convergence and allows a minimum of signal distortion to occur without resorting to a command customarily input from the outside for commanding the learning operation of filters.” Ex. 1003, 9:14–18, cited in Prelim. Resp. 11. At this stage and on this record, we preliminarily determine that Ikeda at most describes an alternative that is desirable in some situations but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage modifying it to arrive at the claimed invention in a way that would indicate that Ikeda teaches away from the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200–01 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“B. Claim Construction We need only construe terms that are in controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner argues that it is unnecessary to construe any terms. Pet. 13. Patent Owner agrees. Prelim. Resp. 7. 11 depends on that term’s meaning. Id. at 16–18; see infra § II.C.3.b.i. Apart from our discussion about the meaning of the recited “determination” in Section II.C.3.b.i, we do not construe any terms.” slip op. at 7
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately three years of industry or academic experience in a field related to acoustics, speech recognition, speech detection, or signal processing. (Ex. 1002 ¶28.) Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience. (Id.) Pet. 13. In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 7–8. In this Decision, we apply Petitioner’s proposed definition. If Patent Owner proposes a different level of ordinary skill in the art in its Response, the parties are encouraged to explain how the differences affect the obviousness analysis.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,019,091 - PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01127 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 11 would have been obvious over Ikeda and Puthuff.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Remaining Limitations Apart from the arguments discussed above, Patent Owner does not present arguments specifically directed to the subject matter recited in the rest of the claim. Even so, Petitioner has the burden to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. Thus, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence submitted in connection with the remaining limitations and find them to be sufficient at this stage and on this record. From the current record, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in demonstrating that at least independent claim 11 would have been obvious over Ikeda and Puthuff. Because Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 11 is unpatentable, we institute on all challenges and all claims challenged in the Petition. We have reviewed the rest of the Petition, and the remainder of this Decision provides guidance to the parties.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“Yet Ikeda notes that it is difficult to command the adaptive filter’s learning “depending on the situation in which the noise canceler is located.” See Ex. 1003, 3:40–54 (emphasis added). We emphasize “depending on the situation” here because it indicates that Ikeda does not necessarily criticize all outside sensors, in all situations. See id. Rather, Ikeda’s discussion of outside sensors refers to the sensors that were discussed in the background of the invention and under the specific conditions described in that section. See id. at 1:4–3:54, quoted in Prelim. Resp. 4. For example, in the part quoted by Patent Owner that allegedly teaches away, Ikeda explains that with conventional sensors “a sufficient noise canceling ability and a sufficient distortion correction characteristic are not achievable unless adequate learning sections are indicated to each adaptive filter for the learning purpose.” Id. That is, Ikeda identifies a particular type of sensor: “conventional noise cancelers.” See id. Also, Ikeda’s “Background of the Invention” Section provides specific discussion of a conventional noise canceler, which is shown in Figure 5, reproduced below. See id. at 1:43. In Figure 5, the conventional noise canceler has a main signal microphone 1, a reference signal microphone 2, an adaptive filter 3, a subtracter 4, and an output terminal. Id. at 1:42–46. The conventional noise canceler updates the adaptive filter’s coefficient and learns the acoustic characteristic of noise in sections where the noise signal N(z) is present and the desired signal component S(z) is absent or negligibly small. Id. at 3:32–36. Ikeda teaches using this conventional sensor to detect the absence of a desired signal component. Id. at 3:32–45. In the context of discussing this sensor, Ikeda explains that “it is, in many cases, difficult to command the adaptive filters to perform learning from the outside in accordance with the level of the desired signal and that of the noise signal, depending on the situation in which the noise canceler is located.” Id. at 3:46–50. At this stage and on this record, we preliminarily determine that the cited part of Ikeda refers to the limitations of this conventional sensor—not all outside sensors, generally. according to Petitioner, Ikeda teaches multiple alternative options for detecting the absence of a desired signal component. See Pet. 21–22. For instance, Ikeda proposes using a signal-to-noise power ratio estimator. Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 4:49–56, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶ 70). Ikeda explains that, with the estimator, the noise canceler “insures rapid convergence and allows a minimum of signal distortion to occur without resorting to a command customarily input from the outside for commanding the learning operation of filters.” Ex. 1003, 9:14–18, cited in Prelim. Resp. 11. At this stage and on this record, we preliminarily determine that Ikeda at most describes an alternative that is desirable in some situations but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage modifying it to arrive at the claimed invention in a way that would indicate that Ikeda teaches away from the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200–01 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“specific approach that uses conventional noise cancelers, Petitioner describes the benefits of the multiple options for detecting voicing activity in different situations. For example, Petitioner asserts that “Ikeda discloses the need for accurately determining periods when a desired signal (e.g., voicing activity) is present and periods when a desired signal is absent for an adaptive noise canceler to function optimally.” Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:32–54; Ex. 1002 ¶ 91). According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to other VAD methods, including Puthuff’s. Id. at 33–34. Petitioner argues that Puthuff would have improved voice-activity detection in noisy environments, in particular. Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 3:19–24, 6:6–10). Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 91–93, cited in Pet. 33–34. On this record, Petitioner’s assertions are adequately supported. Pet. 32–34. The cited part of Puthuff, for instance, explains that its system improves “immunity to false triggering due to noisy environments.” Ex. 1004, 3:19–24, 6:6–10. We credit the testimony of Dr. Richard Stern, which is consistent with this teaching. Ex. 1002 ¶ 91. At this stage, the Petition sufficiently explains how Ikeda’s and Puthuff’s systems are similar and how both are concerned with solving the same problem. See Pet. 32–36.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“A. Motion for Joinder Meta Platforms, Inc. filed a Motion for Joinder (Paper 2), requesting joinder as a petitioner in IPR2023-00253. Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Motion for Joinder. Paper 7. On August 10, 2023, the Board terminated IPR2023-00253 (Paper 14). After that termination, Meta Platforms, Inc. filed a Motion to Withdraw its Motion for Joinder. Paper 8. Because IPR2023-00253 has been terminated, we grant the Motion to Withdraw the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,019,091 - Ao Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01334 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–30 as obvious over Kester and Honig, with Kennedy for claims 3–6 and 15–18, and granted joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims and grant the Motion for Joinder.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“petition is time-barred.” Prelim. Resp. 2. Patent Owner asserts that “by the time the Board issues its institution decision in the instant proceeding, the [289] IPR will likely be terminated,” as Patent Owner and the petitioner in the 289 IPR “have already resolved their disputes with respect to the ’250 patent and jointly filed a motion to terminate the [289] IPR.” Id. at 3. Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. The 289 IPR was instituted on July 21, 2023, and Petitioner filed its joinder motion on August 18, 2023, before the joint motion to terminate in the 289 IPR was filed on November 20, 2023. The joinder motion is timely because joinder was requested no later than one month after institution of the 289 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Additionally, the 289 IPR is still pending. The Petition therefore is not time-barred. Under these circumstances, we may grant Petitioner’s joinder motion.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDecided for petitioner
“This argument also is unavailing. Since the filing of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in this proceeding, Petitioner has updated its mandatory notices to include Kaspersky Labs Limited and Kaspersky Lab Switzerland GmbH as real parties in interest “out of an abundance of caution.”5 Paper 8, 5. Moreover, we need not decide whether a party has identified all real parties in interest at the institution stage absent an implication of a time bar or an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18–20 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential). We recognize Patent Owner’s allegation that, “without joinder, the [P]etition is time-barred.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (emphasis added). As explained above, however, the Petition is not time-barred, given that Petitioner has timely filed its joinder motion and the 289 IPR is still pending. Patent Owner does not allege a time bar or other estoppel would prevent institution if an unnamed party were identified as a real party in interest.” slip op. at 4
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner further argues that we should discretionarily deny the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) for the “same reasons” set forth in its preliminary response in the 289 IPR. We have already found those reasons insufficient to support exercising our discretion to deny institution. Thus, for the reasons given in our institution decision in the 289 IPR, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution here. See 289 IPR, Paper 7.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,418,250 - Ao Kaspersky Lab v. Open Text Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01199 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 12, and 15–18 on all petitioned grounds, and granted AO Kaspersky Lab’s motion to join IPR2023-00124.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Patent Owner’s argument is unavailing. Our rules specifically prohibit incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document. Combined motions, oppositions, replies, or other combined documents are not permitted.”). We therefore decline to consider, at this 2 Morris et al., U.S. Publ’n No. 2007/0016953 A1, published Jan. 18, 2007 (Ex. 1005). 3 van Oorschot et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,087,087 B1, issued Dec. 27, 2011 (Ex. 1006). 4 Capalik et al., U.S. Publ’n No. 2011/0321166 A1, published Dec. 29, 2011 (Ex. 1008). stage, the arguments presented in the Patent Owner Response in the 124 IPR. Because Patent Owner does not offer other arguments on the merits, for the reasons given in our institution decision in the 124 IPR, we determine that the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in showing that the challenged claims would have been obvious. See 124 IPR, Paper 11.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15, 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). As noted above, the Petition asserts the same unpatentability grounds on which we instituted review in the 124 IPR, relying on substantially the same evidence.6 Joinder Mot. 1. If joinder is granted, Petitioner agrees to assume an “understudy” role and states that “[u]nless and until the current petitioners in IPR2023-00124 cease to participate in the instituted [124] IPR proceeding, [Petitioner] will not assume an active role.” Id. at 7–9. Petitioner represents that “[n]o additional grounds or arguments are being introduced, no new evidence or issues are being added, and no additional discovery or briefing or oral argument should be necessary as a result of [Petitioner’s] joinder.” Id. at 9. Petitioner further “agrees to adhere to all applicable deadlines set forth in the [124] IPR Scheduling Order.” Id. at 6– 7. We agree with Petitioner that joinder with the 124 IPR is appropriate under these circumstances. Patent Owner did not file an opposition to Petitioner’s joinder motion. Accordingly, we grant the joinder motion.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s argument in this regard also is unavailing. The 124 IPR was instituted on June 15, 2023, and Petitioner filed its joinder motion on July 14, 2023, before the joint motion to terminate in the 124 IPR was filed on November 20, 2023. The joinder motion is timely because joinder was requested no later than one month after institution of the 124 IPR. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Additionally, the 124 IPR is still pending. The Petition therefore is not time-barred. Under these circumstances, we may grant Petitioner’s joinder motion.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityNot reached
“This argument also is unavailing. We need not decide whether a party has identified all real parties in interest at the institution stage absent an implication of a time bar or an estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315. SharkNinja Operating LLC v. iRobot Corp., IPR2020-00734, Paper 11 at 18–20 (PTAB Oct. 6, 2020) (precedential). We recognize Patent Owner’s allegation that, “without joinder, the [P]etition is time-barred.” Prelim. Resp. 2 (emphasis added). As explained above, however, the Petition is not time-barred, given that Petitioner has timely filed its joinder motion and the 124 IPR is still pending. Patent Owner does not allege a time bar or other estoppel would prevent institution if an unnamed party were identified as a real party in interest.” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,578,045 - PTAB · Dec 21, 2023 · IPR2023-01046 · APJ Jean R Homere · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 and 16–19 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds based on Chalom and Aslan, with Grau or Pace for certain claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). We have authority, acting on the designation of the Director, to determine whether to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). Based on the current record, and for the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proffered definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but offers a definition of its own. Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had at least a bachelor’s or master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, electrical and computer engineering, computer science, or similar educational background; or equivalent on-the-job training, including approximately two to three years of experience in machine learning and/or pattern recognition.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). Patent Owner asserts that the “level of skill is approximate and more experience would compensate for less formal education and vice versa.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 21). We note that the differences between the parties’ descriptions are immaterial and find Petitioner’s description to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’985 patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision, albeit without the two instances of “at least,” which introduce ambiguity. See, e.g., In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that it “applied plain and ordinary meanings of all terms and no express constructions are required here.” Pet. 5. Patent Owner “agrees with Petitioner that there are no claim terms that require construction for purposes of the Board’s decision on institution.” Prelim. Resp. 9. At this stage in the proceeding, and without further argument from the parties, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any term for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to determine whether to institute inter partes review). We note that this determination does not preclude the parties from arguing their proposed constructions of the claims during trial, as permitted by our rules and binding precedent. Indeed, the parties are hereby given notice that claim construction, in general, is an issue to be addressed at trial. A final determination as to claim construction will be made at the close of the proceeding, after any hearing, based on all the evidence of record.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“related fields, in that they disclose similar techniques of using machine learning for image processing (e.g., using image data to train MLAs to correct the gaze of a video-conferencing user). Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005, 3:21–32; Ex. 1007 ¶ 24). Petitioner also contends both “Chalom and Aslan are at least reasonably pertinent to a problem identified in the ’985 Patent of high accuracy MLAs often consuming more computational resources and being slower to run, as compared to efficient MLAs tending to provide less accurate predictions.” Id. at 42 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:24–30; Ex. 1007 ¶ 45). Thus, “Chalom and Aslan are at least reasonably pertinent to this efficiency- 4 It has been held that where the claimed subject matter involves more than the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for the improvement, a holding of obviousness must be based on “an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–18. That is, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 417–18. versus accuracy problem. Id. (citing Ex. 1005, 1:16–25, 9:48–55, 10:40–60, Fig. 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 45; Ex. 1001, 16:24–44, 17:14–17; Ex. 1003 ¶ 212). Petitioner shows sufficiently for institution that a POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Aslan’s teacher-student architecture into Chalom’s image editing and training of its RFC to enhance the overall gains in efficiency and accuracy of the ensuing system. Id. at 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213–222; Ex. 1007 ¶ 44). For purposes of institution, we find that Petitioner’s rationale, which is supported by the testimony of Dr. Karam, is a sufficient demonstration, at this stage, of a motivation to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–18. However, we note that Patent Owner’s arguments may have some merit, and encourage the parties to further develop this issue at trial.” slip op. at 37
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,740,985 - Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merck Serono SARehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00050 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on claims 17, 19, 20, and 22–29 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing has the burden to show a decision should be modified by specifically identifying all matters the party believes were misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was 1 US 7,888,328 B2, issued Feb. 15, 2011 (Ex. 1029, “Bodor”). 2 Rice et al., Cladribine and progressive MS: Clinical and MRI outcomes of a multicenter controlled trial, NEUROLOGY, 54(5):1145–1155 (2000) (Ex. 1008, “Rice”). addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315–16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Having reconsidered the record before us, we are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and (d) and presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that Bodor either alone or in combination with Rice renders obvious the method of treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis or early secondary progressive multiple sclerosis by administering cladribine to a patient in the same claimed total amounts for both induction and the maintenance period to support Petitioner’s challenge to claim 17.” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“Having considered the record, we agree with Petitioner that the Office erred in its evaluation of the cited art (now asserted) as required by Advanced Bionics. Advanced Bionics cautions that “[i]f reasonable minds can disagree regarding the purported treatment of the art or arguments, it cannot be said that the Office erred in a manner material to patentability.” Paper 6, 9. Here, both Examiner and Patent Owner interpret Bodor to disclose administering the same dose of cladribine in both the induction and maintenance phase. Claim 17 encompasses administering the same dose of cladribine – 1.7 mg/kg – in both the induction and maintenance phase. By interpreting claim 17 as requiring a maintenance dose that is lower than the induction dose, we agree with Petitioner that Examiner misapprehended the scope of claim 17. We, therefore, decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“the claims. “All that is required is that the total dose reach a stated level in each period, and Bodor discloses a total dose within that range for what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an average patient.” Req. Reh’g 14 (emphasis omitted) (citing Pet. 42–50). Dr. Greenberg testifies that Bodor’s total dosage of cladribine ranges from 100–140 mg in the two-month treatment period. Ex. 1005 ¶ 104. The issue, as presented by Petitioner, is that the ’903 patent claims simply use a different way of reciting a total dose of cladribine administered during the treatment phase when compared to the methods and dosage taught by Bodor. We agree with Petitioner that the method and cladribine dosage in the ’903 patent claims overlap with the method and dosage taught by Bodor. To determine the total amount of cladribine administered as claimed in the ’903 patent requires knowledge of the weight of the patient. In the Petition, Petitioner relied on a patient weighing 70 kilograms (≈ 154 pounds) to be an acceptable average human weight as understood in the medical community. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 105). Patients, however, come in all shapes and sizes as recognized in the ’903 patent disclosure and further supported by Dr. Greenberg’s testimony and referenced exhibit. See Ex. 1001, 3:8 (“patients of about 52 and about 75 kilos); see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 106 (“the average weight of individuals in the United States is higher than the global average, with an overall average weight (men and women combined) of roughly 177 lbs in 2002.”); Ex. 1030 (“the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.”). To arrive at the average weight of 177 pounds means that there are patients in the population that are above and below that average. See generally Ex. 1030.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,377,903 - Twi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merck Serono SARehearing grantedPTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-00049 · APJ Ulrike W Jenks · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted rehearing and instituted IPR on claims 36, 38, 39, and 41–48 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“addressed previously in a motion, opposition, or a reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). When rehearing a decision on institution, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315– 16 (Fed. Cir. 2000).” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Petitioner has met its burden under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c) and (d) and presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood that Bodor either alone or in combination with Rice renders obvious the method of treating multiple sclerosis by administering cladribine to a patient in the same claimed total amount for both the induction period and maintenance period to support Petitioner’s challenge to claim 36.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“To summarize, Bodor teaches two treatment regimens for treating multiple sclerosis with a cladribine-cyclodextrin complex. 10 mg of cladribine in the instant complex cladribine-cyclodextrin complex . . . would be administered [orally] once per day for a period of five to seven days in the first month, repeated for another period of five to seven days in the second month, followed by ten months of no treatment. Alternatively the patient would be treated with 10 mg of cladribine in the instant complex cladribine-cyclodextrin complex in the instant dosage form once per day for a period of five to seven days per month for a total of six months, followed by eighteen months of no treatment. Ex. 1029, 13:20–30. Petitioner acknowledges that Bodor does not explicitly suggest applying the same regimen again after a cladribine-free period but finds that repeating the treatment protocol is reasonably inferred. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 109, 111–113), see id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 168–170); Ex. 1029, 18:45–19:3, 20:1–20 (Examples 4 and 5 each describing that treatment days are separated by cladribine-free days); Ex. 1003 at 389; Ex. 1004 at 141. Bodor also teaches that the dosing regimen can be tailored to suit the needs of the patient. Specifically, Bodor teaches that “one of skill will appreciate that the therapeutically effective amount of cladribine administered . . . may be lowered or increased by fine tuning and/or by administering cladribine . . . with another active ingredient.” Ex. 1029, 13:31–35, see also id. 13:37–40 (“Therapeutically effective amounts may be easily determined . . . empirically by starting at relatively low amounts and by step-wise increasing with concurrent evaluation of beneficial effect.”). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Petitioner that it would be reasonable to infer from Bodor’s teachings in conjunction with the knowledge of the ordinary artisan that the cladribine dosing protocol in Bodor is repeated. Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 109–123, 119 (“common practice in the industry when prescribing a second round of an” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDecided for petitioner
“(1) [determining] whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of [the] first part of the framework is satisfied, [determining] whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims.” slip op. at 9
§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,713,947 - PTAB · Dec 20, 2023 · IPR2023-01069 · APJ Robert A Pollock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–8 on all three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would show the claims unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“and accompanying evidence under 35 U.S.C. § 314. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Further, a decision to institute may not do so on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We integrate the above considerations into the Advanced Bionics two- part framework in deciding discretionary denial under § 325(d), first considering Becton, Dickinson factors (a), (b), and (d) to determine whether the same or substantially the same art or arguments were previously presented to the Office, and if so, evaluating Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f) to determine whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, 7–11.” slip op. at 58
- Other 314aDenied
“Patent Owner points to § 314(a)27 as a basis for denying institution but provides no substantive argument or evidence on this point. See Prelim. Resp. 2 (citation), 4 (citation), 15 (section heading), 31 (citation in parenthetical). At best, Patent Owner asserts that if we find “that fewer than all three Grounds meet the standard for Section 325(d), institution of Samsung’s petition should still be denied in full, because institution on all three Grounds ‘would not be an efficient use of the Board’s time and 27 Under certain circumstances, the Board may apply its discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution in light of a parallel district court proceeding involving the same patent. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020- 00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). But as noted by Petitioner, the patent at issue here “has never been asserted in any litigation.” Pet. 63. 66 resources.’” Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018- 01310, Paper 7 at 41–43 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative)). Because we decline to exercise our discretion with respect to any of the Grounds under § 325(d), the Board’s Deeper decision is inapposite.” slip op. at 66
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not presently dispute this definition “except to clarify that the POSA would have at least two years of experience in engineering monoclonal antibodies for human therapeutic use, either in the laboratory or industry.” Prelim. Resp. 44–48 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 48–49 (arguing that Petitioner cannot prove unpatentability of the challenged claims under either party’s definition). At this stage in the proceeding, we accept and apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of the skilled artisan, as being both unopposed by Patent Owner and inclusive of Patent Owner’s additional qualification. In this respect, it appears that Petitioner’s language “at least two years of experience in the discovery, development, and design of therapeutic antibodies for use as potential treatments in human disease” encompasses Patent Owner’s proposed modification, and is consistent with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,590,189 - PTAB · Dec 19, 2023 · IPR2023-01062 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 27–33 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the parties’ submissions and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’095 patent. Thus, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’095 patent on all grounds asserted in the Petition. PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (stating that a decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (sometimes abbreviated herein as “POSITA”). Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Petitioner argues that a “person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’095 patent would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and a minimum of 3–4 years of 7 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not offered any evidence of secondary considerations. See generally Prelim. Resp. testing of twisted-pair data cables.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Petitioner also argues an “individual with a master’s degree in electrical engineering would require less industry experience (e.g., 1–2 years).” Id. (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 13). Patent Owner does not dispute this proposed definition. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, because we find Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art adequate and supported on this record. The level of ordinary skill in the art also appears to be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes express constructions for “data communications cable,” “dielectric pair separator,” “substantially flat,” “configurable,” and grooves.” Pet. 12–18. Patent Owner proposes an express construction of “twisted pairs” of insulated conductors. Prelim. Resp. 10–17. As explained below, on the present record, we provide a preliminary construction of the “dielectric pair separator,” “substantially flat,” configurable,” “grooves,” and “twisted pairs” and determine that we need not expressly construe any other claim term at this stage of the proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy). 1. Preamble The preambles of claims 27 and 31 recite a “data communications cable comprising.” Petitioner asserts that the preambles merely states an intended purpose and are not limiting. Pet. 12. We determine that no construction of this term is required at this stage of the proceedings to resolve any issues in dispute.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“2. “dielectric pair separator” Petitioner asserts that the ordinary and customary meaning of a “dielectric pair separator” in view of the intrinsic record is a separator that serves as a dielectric medium and that the term does not require that the separator consist entirely of dielectric material. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 74; Ex. 1001, claim 24 (requiring that the dielectric pair separator have Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed construction of this term, namely that a dielectric pair separator is “a separator that serves as a dielectric medium” and there is no requirement that the separator consist entirely of dielectric material. 3. “substantially flat” Claim 27 recites “the configurable dielectric pair separator being substantially flat.” Claim 31 requires that the “configurable dielectric pair separator include[e] a substantially flat dielectric tape.” Petitioner asserts that the ordinary and customary meaning of a substantially flat separator is a separator that is a substantially flat member prior to being formed into the cable assembly and that the term does not require that the separator be substantially flat in the finished cable. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 76; Ex. 1001, 6:12–25). Petitioner asserts that this construction is consistent with the specification and the construction adopted by the Patent Office during reexamination of the related Patent No. 6,998,537 (“the ’537 patent”) and by the district court. Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:12–2, Figs. 5–11, 13; Ex. 1006, 10–11; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 77–80; Ex. 1052, 3–4). Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed construction of this term, namely, a separator that is a substantially flat member prior to being formed into the cable assembly, and that the term does not require that the separator be substantially flat in the finished cable. 4. “configurable” Independent claims 27 and 31 both recite a “configurable dielectric pair separator.” Petitioner asserts that the ordinary and customary meaning of a “configurable” separator in view of the intrinsic record is “flexible (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 81). Petitioner further asserts that this construction is consistent with the construction adopted by the district court. Id. (citing Ex. 1052, 1–2 Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 81– 84). Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term, namely, that “configurable” means “flexible enough to be formed or shaped in the course of making the cable.” 5. “grooves” Petitioner states that, for the purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner adopts the definition provided by the district court in prior litigation: “Regions within a cable that are substantially physically separated from other regions with[in] the cable by a pair separator; i.e., they are formed by, but need not be part of, the separator.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1052, 3). Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of this term, namely, that grooves are regions within a cable that are substantially physically separated from other regions within the cable by a pair separator.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,570,095
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.