Teladoc Health, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 15, 2021

IPR2021-00871 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2021)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9
571-272-7822 Entered: November 15, 2021

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

AMERICAN WELL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
TELADOC HEALTH, INC.,
Patent Owner.

IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2

Before PATRICK R. SCANLON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SCANLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
35 U.S.C. § 314

IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
2
I. INTRODUCTION
American Well Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2,
“Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent
No. 10,059,000 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’000 patent”). Teladoc Health, Inc.
(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”).
We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes
review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2020). To
institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information
presented in the Petition shows “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 set forth below, we determine
that the information presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable
likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged
claim. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the
’000 patent.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Real Parties in Interest
Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 67. Patent
Owner identifies itself and InTouch Technologies, Inc. as the real parties in
interest. Paper 5, 1.
B. Related Matters
The parties identify the following proceeding as a related matter
involving the ’000 patent: Teladoc Health, Inc. v. American Well
Corporation, No. 1:20-cv-01377-MN (D. Del.). Pet. 68; Paper 5, 1. In
addition, Patent Owner identifies the following inter partes review
proceedings challenging patents concerning subject matter similar to that of
the ’000 patent as related matters: IPR2021-00742, IPR2021-00743,
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
3
IPR2021-00748, IPR2021-00749, IPR2021-00810, IPR2021-00833,
IPR2021-00836, and IPR2021-00933. Paper 5, 1.
C. The ’000 Patent
The ’000 patent, titled “Server Connectivity Control for a Tele-
presence Robot,” issued August 28, 2018, with claims 1–19. Ex. 1001,
codes (45), (54), 9:59–12:26. The ’000 patent “generally relates to the field
of robotics.” Id. at 1:7–8. The robotic system includes a robot having a
camera and a remote station connected to the robot. Id. at 1:51–52. The
system also includes a server that controls which privileges are provided to
the remote control station and a manager control station that can access the
server to establish and edit the privileges. Id. at 1:53–57.
Figure 1 of the ’000 patent is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates robotic system 10. Id. at 1:61, 2:28. In particular,
robotic system 10 includes a plurality of robots 12 coupled to a plurality of
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
4
remote control stations 16 through network 18 and base station 14. Id. at
2:29–32.
Each remote control station 16 includes computer 22 having monitor
24, camera 26, microphone 28, and speaker 30. Id. at 2:39–41. Computer
22 also includes input device 32 such as a joystick or a mouse. Id. at 2:41–
42. Each robot 12 includes movement platform 34 attached to robot housing
36, camera 38, monitor 40, microphone(s) 42, and speaker 44. Id. at 2:50–
53. A user at remote control station 16 is able to move robot 12 through
operation of input device 32. Id. at 2:56–58. Robot camera 38 is coupled to
remote monitor 24 so that the user can view a patient at the robot site, and
robot monitor 40 is coupled to remote camera 26 so the patient at the robot
site can view the user. Id. at 2:58–61. Microphones 28 and 42 and speakers
30 and 44 provide audible communication between the patient and the user.
Id. at 2:61–63.
System 10 includes server 50 that controls connectivity between
remote control stations 16 and robots 12. Id. at 3:6–8. Server 50 includes
database 52 that “can allow for groups of remote stations to connect groups
of robots. Groups may contain individual robots and control stations.
Groups may also contain customers, which represent all robots and control
stations belonging to a particular customer.” Id. at 3:8–14. Group data, such
as a unique numeric ID, can be stored in database 52. Id. at 3:47–67.
User interface 60 is used to create and edit groups. Id. at 3:25–26,
Fig. 2. A manager control station can be used to access the user interface.
Id. at 6:43–45.
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
5
D. Challenged Claims
As noted above, Petitioner challenges claims 1–19 of the ’000 patent.
Claims 1 and 15 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter and is reproduced below:
1. A remote controlled robot, comprising:
a plurality of robots, each robot having a robot camera, a robot
camera, a robot microphone, and a robot speaker;
a remote station that can establish a connection with said robot,
said remote station including a station camera, a station
monitor, a station microphone, a station speaker;
a server that contains a database that defines a first subset of
said plurality of robots as associated with a first customer
identification (ID) and a second subset of said plurality of
robots as associated with a second customer ID; and,
a manager control station that can access said server to edit
which of said plurality of robots is associated with said first
subset of robots or said second subset of robots, wherein,
when said connection between said remote station and said
robot is established, the robot monitor displays an image
captured by the station camera, the station monitor displays
an image captured by the robot camera, the station
microphone reproduces a sound captured by the robot
microphone, and the robot speaker reproduces a sound
captured by the station microphone.
Ex. 1001, 9:59–8:45.
E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
Petitioner contends that the challenged claims would have been
unpatentable on the following grounds:1

1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
(2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Because the ’000 patent
has an effective filing date before the March 16, 2013, effective date of the
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
6
Claim(s) Challenged 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–8, 10–19 103(a) Wang-I,2 Johnson3
5, 6, 18 103(a) Wang-I, Johnson, Wang-II4
7, 8 103(a) Wang-I, Johnson, Wang-III5
9 103(a) Wang-I, Johnson, Wang-IV6
2–8, 10, 16–19 103(a)
Wang-I, Johnson, Van
Kommer7
9 103(a)
Wang-I, Johnson, Wang-IV,
Van Kommer
Pet. 2. Petitioner supports its challenge with the Declaration of Dr. Jerzy W.
Rozenblit (Ex. 1003).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
time it was made, 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires us to resolve the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the effective filing date of the
claimed invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). The
person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed
to have known the relevant art. In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579
(Fed. Cir. 1995). Factors that may be considered in determining the level of
ordinary skill in the art include, but are not limited to, the types of problems
encountered in the art, the sophistication of the technology, and educational

applicable AIA amendments, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102, 103.
2 US 2004/0162637 A1, published Aug. 19, 2004 (Ex. 1004).
3 US 2008/0077425 A1, published Mar. 27, 2008 (Ex. 1005).
4 US 2005/0122390 A1, published June 9, 2005 (Ex. 1006).
5 US 2004/0167666 A1, published Aug. 26, 2004 (Ex. 1007).
6 US 2007/0291109 A1, published Dec. 20, 2007 (Ex. 1008).
7 US 6,584,376 B1, issued June 24, 2003 (Ex. 1009).
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
7
level of active workers in the field. Id. In a given case, one or more factors
may predominate. Id.
Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have had at least a Bachelor’s of Science Degree (or
equivalent) in an academic area emphasizing electrical
engineering, computer engineering, computer science,
biomedical engineering, or a related technical field, and at least
2-3 years of experience in the field of robotics, telepresence
systems, or both (e.g., familiarity with wireless communication
technology, biomedical robotic systems, etc.).
Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s
definition for the purposes of this proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 15.
Based on our review of the record before us, we find that Petitioner’s
stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent
with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly,
for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition.
B. Claim Construction
In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the
district-court-type standard, as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Under
that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary
meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the
specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful
when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should
be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19.
Petitioner contends that all claim terms should be given their ordinary
and customary meaning. Pet. 3. Patent Owner agrees that no formal claim
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
8
construction is necessary at this stage of the proceeding. Prelim. Resp. 16.
On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any
claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analysis below
of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present
controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan
Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that
“we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent
necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
& Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
C. Asserted Obviousness Based on Wang-I and Johnson
Petitioner asserts that claims 1–8 and 10–19 of the ’000 patent are
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Wang-I and Johnson.
Pet. 9–51. Patent Owner provides arguments addressing this asserted
ground of unpatentability. Prelim. Resp. 27–45. We first summarize the
references and then address the parties’ contentions.
1. Wang-I
Wang-I discloses “[a] robotic system that includes a mobile robot
linked to a plurality of remote stations,” in which “[o]ne of the remote
stations includes an arbitrator that controls access to the robot.” Ex. 1004,
code (57). Figure 1 of Wang-I is reproduced below.
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
9

Figure 1 illustrates robotic system 10. Id. ¶¶ 10, 22. In particular, robotic
system 10 includes robot 12 coupled to a plurality of remote control stations
16 through network 18 and base station 14. Id. ¶ 22.
Each remote control station 16 includes computer 22 having monitor
24, camera 26, microphone 28, and speaker 30. Id. ¶ 23. Computer 22 also
includes input device 32 such as a joystick or a mouse. Id. Robot 12
includes movement platform 34 attached to robot housing 36, camera 38,
monitor 40, microphone(s) 42, and speaker 44. Id. ¶ 24. A user at remote
control station 16 is able to move robot 12 through operation of input device
32. Id. Robot camera 38 is coupled to remote monitor 24 so that the user
can view a patient at the robot site, and robot monitor 40 is coupled to
remote camera 26 so that the patient can view the user. Id. Microphones 28
and 42 and speakers 30 and 44 allow audible communication between the
robot site and the user. Id.
As shown in Figure 9 (not reproduced here), one of the remote control
stations—designated the master station—includes arbitrator 250. Id. ¶ 43.
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
10
The system is configured such that all messages and commands are initially
routed to the master station. Id. Arbitrator 250 determines which of the
multiple remote control stations has priority and then forwards messages
from that station to robot 12. Id. Furthermore, arbitrator 250 can cut off
access to the robot from one station and provide access to another station.
Id.
2. Johnson
Johnson discloses “[a] system, method, and computer program
product . . . for identifying, configuring, and accessing a device connected to
a network.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 3. Figure 1 of Johnson is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates a network architecture 100. Id. ¶ 20. Network
architecture 100 includes network 102 that may be “a telecommunications
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
11
network, a local area network (LAN), a wireless network, a wide area
network (WAN) such as the Internet, peer-to-peer network, cable network,
etc.” Id. A plurality of devices is coupled to network 102. Id. These
devices can include server computer 104 and an end user computer 106
coupled to the network 102 for communication purposes. Id. Other devices
include personal digital assistant (PDA) device 108, mobile phone device
110, television 112, networked camera 113, irrigation controller 114,
network router 115, and media server, 116. Id.
Figure 5 is reproduced below.

Figure 5 shows system 500 for accessing a device on a network and/or
automatically configuring the device. Id. ¶ 36. System 500 includes device
502, such as a camera, connected to network 506. Id. ¶ 37. Device 502 may
be identified with unique identifier 504. Id.
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
12
Device 502 may be associated with a service having Universal Device
Locator (UDL) 512. Id. ¶ 38. A “UDL may include any term (e.g. a
familiar term, etc.) capable of being used for identification purposes.” Id.
¶ 32. UDL 512 may represent an individual or an entity, such as a company,
vendor, etc. Id. ¶ 38. Device 502 may be associated with UDL 512 by
associating the device’s unique identifier 504 with UDL 512. Id. ¶ 39. The
association between unique identifier 504 and UDL 512 may be stored in
UDL server 514. Id.
“By associating the device 502 with at least one UDL 512, a user (e.g.
owner, etc.) associated with the UDL 512 may access the device 502 over
the network 506 (e.g. from a location remote from the device, etc.) utilizing
the service providing the UDL 512.” Id. ¶ 40. For example, a user may
access device 502 from remote personal computer 508 using the association
between unique identifier 504 and UDL 512. Id. ¶ 41.
3. Independent Claim 1
Petitioner provides analysis purporting to show where each limitation
recited in independent claim 1 is disclosed by the combination of Wang-I
and Johnson. Pet. 19–35. Regarding the limitation “a server that contains a
database that defines a first subset of said plurality of robots as associated
with a first customer identification (ID) and a second subset of said plurality
of robots as associated with a second customer ID,” Petitioner asserts that
Wang-I discloses arbitrator 250 that grants or denies access to a robot. Id. at
21–22 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43–46). Petitioner also asserts that Wang-I
describes that arbitrator 250 could be within a server and in communication
with both the remote stations and the robot. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 56).
Petitioner then states that
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
13
If Wang-I is deemed not to disclose that its server “contains a
database that defines a first subset of said plurality of robots as
associated with a first customer identification (ID) and a
second subset of said plurality of robots as associated with a
second customer ID,” as recited in claim 1, such a feature was
well-known in the prior art at the time of the ’000 patent.
Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 62) (emphasis added). It is not clear, however,
whether Petitioner actually asserts that Wang-I discloses a server containing
the database recited in claim 1. But, to the extent Petitioner is taking this
position, Petitioner fails to explain adequately how arbitrator 250 (even
assuming for the sake of argument that arbitrator 250 is a server) contains a
database defining a first subset of robots as associated with a first customer
ID and a second subset of robots as associated with a second customer ID.
Furthermore, we agree with Patent Owner that “Wang-I is completely silent
regarding the defining of subsets of the robots, or associating such subsets
with a customer ID.” See Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 23; Ex. 2001
¶ 69).
Next, Petitioner asserts that Johnson discloses using identifiers (i.e.,
UDLs) to remotely manage, access, and control devices over a network.
Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30–55). In particular, Petitioner argues that
Johnson’s server 514 manages and stores associations between unique
identifiers 504 of devices 502 and services having UDL 512. Id. at 23
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 32, 33, 36–41, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). Petitioner further
argues that “Johnson additionally teaches that subsets of devices can be
associated with different UDL identifiers, and that such UDL identifiers can
represent individuals and entities (i.e., companies) who own or otherwise
control one or more devices registered with the UDL server.” Id. at 24
(citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38–48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63–65). In addition, Petitioner
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
14
argues that the individuals or entities associated with UDL 512 can be a
customer. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 49; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66).
In view of these assertions, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood (1) that Johnson’s UDL is a customer
ID as claimed, and (2) that Johnson’s disclosure of UDLs representing
various individuals or entities and devices being associated with each UDL,
teaches a first subset of devices associated with a first customer ID and a
second subset of devices associated with a second customer ID. Id. (citing
Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 39, 43; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67).
Patent Owner disputes the second contention, arguing that “Johnson
associates each device with a UDL by associating the unique identifier of
that device with the UDL, which does not disclose any concept of defining
subsets (groups) of devices, and associating such subsets with the UDL.”
Prelim. Resp. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 39; Ex. 2001 ¶ 71).
We agree with Patent Owner. Johnson discloses that device 502 may
be associated with UDL 512 by associating the device’s unique identifier
504 with UDL 512. Ex. 1005 ¶ 39. The association between unique
identifier 504 and UDL 512 may be stored on UDL server 514. Id.
Although this disclosure reflects that the association between a single device
and UDL 512 is stored on server 514, Johnson also discloses that “[b]y
logging into the Internet service providing the UDL 512, all devices that
have been associated with such UDL 512 may become available and
accordingly an automatic update to such devices may be allowed.” Id. ¶ 43.
This latter disclosure suggests that multiple devices (each presumably
having its own unique identifier) can be associated with UDL 512, resulting
in multiple unique identifier-UDL associations that are presumably stored on
server 514. Petitioner, however, does not explain sufficiently how one of
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
15
ordinary skill in the art would have understood Johnson to teach that these
multiple devices are divided into one subset associated with a first customer
ID and another subset associated with a second customer ID. For example,
Petitioner argues that “Johnson describes that ‘the UDL 512 may represent
an individual, an entity (e.g. a company, vendor, etc.), etc.,” and that “the
association of the UDL 512 and the unique identifier 504 of the device 502
may be utilized for tracking product ownership.’” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex.
1005 ¶¶ 38, 48). But the fact that a UDL can represent a single entity or be
used to track product ownership does not teach dividing a plurality of
devices into two subsets associated with different customer IDs.
Petitioner also cites Johnson’s disclosure that “the device 502 may be
associated with multiple UDLs 512, where each of the UDLs 512 represents
various individuals or entities (e.g. user, manufacturer, software provider,
reseller, etc.).” Id. (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 39). This disclosure, however,
relates to a single device associated with multiple UDLs—not multiple
devices associated with the same UDL. Furthermore, we interpret the
language “each of the UDLs 512 represents various individuals or entities,”
when taken in context of the entire disclosure, to indicate that the multiple
UDLs collectively represent various individuals or entities, rather than each
UDL individually representing various individuals or entities. Nevertheless,
even if this disclosure does indicate that a single UDL represents multiple
individuals or entities, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has established
adequately that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious
to define a first subset of devices as associated with a first customer ID and a
second subset of devices as associated with a second customer ID.
Dr. Rozenblit’s testimony cited by Petitioner merely repeats the
Petition’s assertions and does not offer objective evidence or analysis to
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
16
support the assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–67. For this reason, we do not
credit the testimony of Dr. Rozenblit on this point. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a)
(“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on
which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see also Nobel
Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (explaining that the Board can reject arguments based on expert
testimony that lacks specificity or detail).
For the above reasons, we are not persuaded that the combination of
Wang-I and Johnson discloses a server containing a database that defines a
first subset of robots as associated with a first customer ID and a second
subset of robots as associated with a second customer ID. Accordingly, we
determine Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood
it would prevail with respect to the contention that claim 1 is unpatentable
over the combination of Wang-I and Johnson.
4. Independent Claim 15
Independent claim 15 recites “[a] method for connecting a remote
station to one of a plurality of robots” that includes “accessing, via a
manager control station, a server that contains a database that defines a first
subset of said plurality of robots and a second subset of said plurality of
robots,” and “associating, via an input of the manager control station, the
first subset of said plurality of robots with a first customer identification (ID)
and the second subset of said plurality of robots with a second customer ID.”
Ex. 1001, 11:15–26.
Petitioner relies on the same analysis made in connection with claim 1
for showing where each limitation recited in independent claim 15 would
have been obvious in view of the combination of Wang-I and Johnson.
Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 105–113). Thus, Petitioner’s challenge to
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
17
claim 15 is based on the same deficient assertions as to the combination of
Wang-I and Johnson as discussed above in the analysis of the challenge to
independent claim 1. For these same reasons, we find that Petitioner has not
met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 15 is unpatentable
over the combination of Wang-I and Johnson.
5. Claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–19
Claims 2–8 and 10–14 depend from claim 1 and, thus, contain all the
limitations of claim 1, and claims 16–19 depend from claim 15 and, thus,
contain all the limitations of claim 15. Petitioner’s challenges to dependent
claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–19 do not overcome the deficiencies discussed
above with respect to the challenge to independent claims 1 and 15. See
Pet. 35‒49, 50–51. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above in
connection with claims 1 and 15, we find Petitioner has not met its burden to
show a reasonable likelihood that claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–19 are
unpatentable over the combination of Wang-I and Johnson.
D. Remaining Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 5, 6, and 18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Wang-I, Johnson, and Wang-II; claims 7 and 8 as obvious
over Wang-I, Johnson, and Wang-III; claim 9 as obvious over Wang-I,
Johnson, and Wang-IV; claims 2–8, 10, 16–19 as obvious over Wang-I,
Johnson, and Van Kommer; and claim 9 as obvious over Wang-I, Johnson,
Wang-IV, and Van Kommer. Pet. 51–62. Each of these claims depends
from either independent claim 1 or independent claim 15 and, thus, contains
all the limitations thereof. Thus, for each of these grounds, Petitioner relies
in large part on the same assertions presented in the challenge of
independent claims 1 and 15 based on Wang-I and Johnson, discussed
above, in support of its contentions that claims 2–10 and 16–19 would have
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
18
been obvious over Wang-I and Johnson in combination with one or more of
Wang-II, Wang-III, Wang-IV and Van Kommer. Id.
Accordingly, each of these additional grounds suffers from the same
deficiencies noted above (see supra § III.C.3) with respect to the proposed
combination of Wang-I and Johnson. Therefore, for the same reasons
discussed above, we determine that the information presented in the Petition
fails to establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in
showing that claims 2–10 and 16–19 are unpatentable.
E. Discretion Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 325(d)
Patent Owner argues that we should exercise our discretion to deny
institution under § 314(a) and § 325(d). Prelim. Resp. 54–65. Petitioner
argues that discretionary denial is not appropriate in this case. Pet. 62–67.
Because we are not persuaded the Petition demonstrates sufficiently a
reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one
challenged claim (see supra §§ III.C., III.D.), we need not reach Patent
Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial under § 314(a) or
§ 325(d).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we do not institute inter partes review.
V. ORDER
In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of
the ’000 patent; and
FURTHER ORDERED that no inter partes review is instituted.
IPR2021-00871
Patent 10,059,000 B2
19
FOR PETITIONER:
John Phillips
Christopher Hoff
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
phillips@fr.com
hoff@fr.com

PATENT OWNER:

Michael Solomita
Jaime Stark
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
michael.solomita@nortonrosefulbright.com
jaime.stark@nortonrosefulbright.com