In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s opposed motion to strike Patent Owner’s objections to Petitioner’s evidence. Patent Owner had objected to Petitioner’s declaration submitted with the Petition where the witness allegedly “admitted during his deposition that the opinions he presents in the [declaration] are not based on sufficient facts or data, are not the product of reliable principles and method, and are not reliably applied to the facts of this proceeding.” Continue reading
Category Archives: Expert Testimony
Final Written Decision Reaching Different Conclusions than Those in Related Reexamination IPR2014-00544
Order Advising that Cross-Examination Will Occur Before At Least One Member of the Board IPR2015-00977
In its Order, the Board advised the parties that cross-examination of Patent Owner’s witnesses would take place live before at least one member of the panel. Patent Owner submitted declarations for three witnesses, at least two of which for different reasons may not be able to travel to the United States for cross-examination. Dr. Promtov, a resident of Russia, has not been able to obtain a visa to enter the United States and may not be able to obtain on within a time that would permit cross-examination to take place in a manner that would allow the IPR to complete within the one-year statutory time period. Dr. Moholkar, a resident of India, is the sole individual who can attend to his father’s illness, and he may not be able to travel until the father has sufficiently recuperated. Dr. Kellens, a resident of Belgium, may be able to travel to the United States without substantial difficulty.
The Board has elected to hear cross-examination of the three witnesses live before at least one member of the panel. If any witness is unable to attend the live cross-examination, then Patent Owner can substitute a witness and file a Replacement Opposition and Replacement Declaration(s). Any testimony no longer relied upon in the Replacement Opposition would be expunged from the record.
The Board noted that Patent Owner had chosen these witnesses, but because Patent Owner had brought these concerns to the Board early, it was able to implement an alternative Plan B if any witness was unable to travel to the United States.
Arisdyne Systems, Inc. v. Cavitation Technologies, Inc., IPR2015-00977
Paper 32: Order on Cross Examination
Dated: December 15, 2015
Patent: 8,911,808 B2
Before: Fred E. McKelvey, James T. Moore, and Brian P. Murphy
Written by: McKelvey
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review IPR2015-01439
In its Decision, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of claim 43 of the ‘453 patent. The ‘453 patent “relates generally to methods and apparatuses for acquiring and certifying physical measurements. . . . [and,] [m]ore particularly, . . . to acquiring and cryptographically certifying a measurement representative of a physical parameter, such that the measurement can be verified at a later time.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Challenged Claims Not Unpatentable IPR2014-01146
In its Final Written Decision, the Board determined “that Petitioner has not met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 13–15 of the ’207 patent are unpatentable.” The ‘207 patent, “titled System and Method for Activity Based Configuration of an Entertainment System, relates to methods for configuring multi-input and/or multi-output home entertainment systems.” Petitioner had challenged “claims 13–15 of the ’207 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by [Dubil].” Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding All Challenged Claims Unpatentable IPR2014-00879
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all challenged claims (1-3 and 5-7) of the ’679 Patent are unpatentable. The ’679 Patent is directed to a lighting device including a light-emitting device having a light flux controlling member. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Evidence of Commercial Success Unpersuasive IPR2014-00585
Final Written Decision Finding All Challenged Claims Unpatentable IPR2014-00878
In its Final Written Decision, the Board concluded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the challenged claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-12 of the ’969 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner had asserted that the following grounds were applicable: (1) obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tetsuo and Kim; (2) obviousness of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tetsuo, Kim, and Yamaguchi; (3) obviousness of claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tetsuo and Blieske; and (4) obviousness of claims 10 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Tetsuo, Blieske, and Yamaguchi. The ‘969 patent relates to “a display apparatus including a surface light source apparatus having a light emitting apparatus.” Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding All Challenged Claims Anticipated IPR2014-00482
In its Final Written Decision, the Board found that all of the challenged claims (1, 4, 6, 10, 12-15, 17, 20, 22, 26, 28-31, 33, 35, and 37) of the ’180 Patent are unpatentable. The ’180 Patent describes methods for communicating over the Internet. Continue reading
Final Written Decision Finding Challenged Claims Obvious IPR2014-00764
In its Final Written Decision, after having instituted trial on some of the challenged claims, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-11, 15, and 17-26 of the ’832 patent are unpatentable. The Board also denied Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude.
The ’832 patent relates to “a trajectory detection and feedback system, useful to evaluate trajectory parameters of a basketball shot at a basketball hoop.” The Board first addressed claim construction of the unexpired patent under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
The Board construed the term related to the location of velocity determination: “including trajectory locations after the basketball enters the basketball hoop.” Patent Owner argued that the velocity determination should be limited to “post-hoop velocity” or velocity of the basketball after it enters the hoop as opposed to entry velocity of the basketball. Petitioner argued that the term was not so limited and “is broad enough to include the entry velocity,” pointing to an earlier recitation in the claims of “one or more trajectory locations near the basketball hoop.” The Board found that Patent Owner’s proposed construction was unreasonably narrow, and was persuaded that Petitioner’s interpretation was consistent with the broadest interpretation in light of the specification.
The Board then addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude a table in paragraph 34 of Dr. Silverberg’s Declaration (Ex. 2001), and all testimony related to that table. In particular, Petitioner objected to the table because Dr. Silverberg “did not provide—at least as of the conclusion of Dr. Silverberg’s deposition—source data for the numbers in the table,” and cited to 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) in arguing that such testimony without underlying facts or data should be entitled little or no weight. Patent Owner argued that the testimony is admissible as it “is founded on his considerable experience,” and that the motion goes “to weight and not admissibility.” The Board agreed with Patent Owner and denied the motion.
Turning to the obviousness ground based on Marinelli and Mullaney, Patent Owner argued that the prior art did not teach measurement of entry angle and velocity of the basketball, as allegedly required by the independent claims, but rather taught calculation of those values. The Board was not persuaded, finding the argument to be not commensurate in scope with the claims. In particular, the Board noted that the claims require “a processor configured to determine the angle and velocity,” which includes “determination by calculation.” Further, the Board was persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that entry velocity and angle were known to be important characteristics in basketball, and that it would have been obvious to apply the disclosure in Marinelli of a modern “accelerometer network and process, to moveable sports objects in order to determine trajectory characteristics.”
The Board also found Patent Owner’s argument regarding post-hoop velocity unpersuasive because the Board did not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed claim construction. Patent Owner also argued that the Marinelli reference only disclosed measurement of spin rate, having no application in basketball. The Board disagreed with the premise that spin rate has no relevance, but even if so, the Board was still not persuaded because Marinelli also disclosed “the determination of various trajectory characteristics of moving sports objects, not only spin.” As the Board noted, it “will not presume that the person of ordinary skill in the art is an automaton unable to envision applications of the teachings beyond that explicitly disclosed.”
The Board also addressed an argument related to whether Marinelli provided an enabling disclosure that arose from questioning during the oral hearing. Even though the judges apparently elicited the argument from counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing, the Board noted that the argument was not found in Patent Owner’s papers, and counsel’s argument at the hearing cannot serve as a substitute for evidence.
As to the dependent claims, Patent Owner did not argue them separately. Thus, the Board found that Petitioner had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-6, 11, 15, 21, 23, 25, and 26 would have been obvious over Marinelli and Mullaney. The Board also found that Petitioner had established unpatentability of claims 7-10, 17-20, 22, and 24 on the remaining grounds for similar reasons.
Infomotion Sports Tech., Inc. v. Pillar Vision, Inc., IPR2014-00764
Paper 30: Final Written Decision
Dated: November 12, 2015
Patent: 8,622,832 B2
Before: Ken B. Barrett, James P. Calve, and Jacqueline Wright Bonilla
Written by: Barrett
Related Proceedings: Pillar Vision, Inc. v. InfoMotion Sports Technologies, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00043-RDP (N.D. Ala. filed Jan. 8, 2014)