MasterObjects, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 11, 2021IPR2020-01201 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 11, 2021) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: January 11, 2021 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, Petitioner, v. MASTEROBJECTS, INC., Patent Owner. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 Before KARL D. EASTHOM, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 U.S.C. § 314, 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 2 I. INTRODUCTION A. Background and Summary Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2 and 4–12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,311,073 B2 (Ex. 1001, the “’073 Patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). The Petition was accorded a filing date of June 30, 2020. Paper 3. Patent Owner, MasterObjects, Inc., filed a Preliminary Response (“Prelim. Resp.”) on October 16, 2020. Paper 12. Petitioner filed a Reply on November 10, 2020. Paper 17 (public version). By Order dated December 1, 2020, we authorized additional discovery and briefing concerning the real parties in interest, and adjusted the briefing schedule accordingly. Paper 20. Pursuant to the Order, Patent Owner filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 22) on December 2, 2020, and Petitioner filed a Sur-Sur-Reply (Paper 25) (public version) on December 9, 2020. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in a petition “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.” Upon consideration of the Petition and accompanying exhibits and evidence, we determine Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim in the inter partes review. Therefore, we deny institution of an inter partes review as to all of the challenged claims of the ’073 Patent. B. Real Parties in Interest Petitioner identifies itself as the real party in interest. Pet. 86. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 3 Patent Owner also identifies itself as the real party in interest. Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, Paper 5, 2. C. Related Matters Patent Owner has asserted the ’073 Patent in the following cases: Case Name Case Number Court MasterObjects, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. 6:20-cv-00087-ADA W.D. Tex. MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 1:20-cv-3478-PKC S.D.N.Y. Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notices, Paper 5, 2; Pet. 86-87. The ’073 Patent is related to the patents at issue in the following cases: Case Name Case Number Court MasterObjects, Inc. v Google, Inc. 4:11-cv-01054 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 3:11-cv-01055 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 3:11-cv-02402 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. 3:11-cv-02539 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. eBay, Inc. 3:12-cv-00680 N.D. Cal. eBay Inc. v. MasterObjects, Inc. 18-2252 CAFC MasterObjects, Inc. v Google, Inc. 4:13-cv-04304 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc. 3:13-cv-04326 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v Google, Inc. 14-1148 CAFC IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 4 MasterObjects, Inc. v Google, Inc. 4:15-cv-01775 N.D. Cal. MasterObjects, Inc. v. eBay, Inc. 4:16-cv-06824 N.D. Cal. eBay, Inc. v. MasterObjects, Inc. IPR2017-00740 PTAB Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice, 2; Pet. 86–87. D. The ’073 Patent The ’073 Patent, titled “System and Method for Asynchronous Retrieval of Information from a Server to a Client based on Incremental User Input,” describes a system with a client part, a communication protocol, and a server part. Ex. 1001, code (54), code (57). The server part receives incremental text-based input from one or more objects in the client part, and asynchronously returns matching information to the client part from content sources such as databases or search engines. Id. at code (57). Figures 13A to 13D of the ’073 Patent, shown below, depict various states 230 of an input element on the client part. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 5 In Figure 13A, the user has not yet entered a query so the client part is not connected to the server. Id. at 21:61–64, 22:2–4. In Figure 13B, as the user enters characters of a query, the client part fires a query to the server. Id. at 22:2–12. In Figure 13C, the user has typed three characters (“Fer”). Id. at 22:21–24. In Figure 13D, the server responds with results corresponding to the input characters, which are displayed in a drop-down list. Figure 12B of the ’073 Patent, shown below, depicts a screenshot of a web page incorporating a client search object (“AutoComplete QuestField”). Id. at 3:24–26, 21:22–24. Figure 12B shows a screenshot of a device as it looks after the user enters “Ferrari 3.” The screenshot lists various models corresponding to the entered input, and shows images of those models. Ex. 1001, 21:31–39. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 6 E. Challenged Claims Claim 1 of the ’073 Patent is independent. Claims 2 and 4–12 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1. Claim 1 is set forth below with annotated numbering of elements: 1. [1preamble] A method, comprising: [1a] detecting, on a client computer, entry of a content search query into a field on a web page by a user; [1b] while the user is entering the content search query, automatically sending a string representing an incomplete search query to a server system comprising one or more computers; [1c] receiving, by the server system, the string; [1d] matching, by the server system, the string to entries in a cache of query strings and search results based on content queries received from multiple users, whereby cached search results contain a subset of data from one or more content sources; [1e] retrieving, by the server system, search result data for the incomplete search query; [1f] sending, by the server system to the client computer prior to completion of the search query at the client, a message containing information identifying the incomplete search query and at least a portion of the search result data that identifies the content in a content source; [1g] asynchronously receiving, on the client computer, without loading another web page and while the user is entering the content search query into the field, the message, and [1h] displaying at least a portion of the search result data on the client computer and enabling the user to retrieve additional content data corresponding to the search result. Ex. 1001, 39:20–46. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 7 F. Evidence Petitioner relies upon the following prior art references (see Pet. 1), as well as the Declaration of Dr. Harley R. Myler (Ex. 1002)1: Reference Exhibit Patent/Printed Publication 1005 Kamvar U.S. Publication 2005/0283468 A1, published December 22, 2005 1006 Baluja U.S. Publication 2006/0122976 A1, published June 8, 2006 1007 Kravets U.S. Patent 6,704,727, issued March 9, 2004 1008 Porter U.S. Publication 2007/0130131 A1, published June 7, 2007 1009 Barr U.S. Patent 5,873,076, issued February 16, 1999 Patent Owner relies on the Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Pazzani (Ex. 2028). G. The Asserted Challenges Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability: Ground # Challenged Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 1 1, 6–8 and 11 103 Kamvar 2 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 103 Kamvar, Baluja 3 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 103 Kravets, Porter, Barr Pet. 1. 1 As discussed below, for purposes of this Decision, the claims at issue have an effective filing date prior to the effective date of the AIA’s amendments to 35 U.S.C. § 112 (September 16, 2012) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (March 16, 2013). Thus, we apply the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103, and 112 in this Decision (pre-Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”)). IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 8 II. ANALYSIS OF CHALLENGES A. Ground 1: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 6–8 and 11 over Kamvar 1. Legal Background For a patent to claim priority to the filing date of an earlier application, the specification of the earlier application must provide written description and enablement support for the patent’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1. That is, the earlier application must “contain a written description of the invention, and the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 ¶ 1, 120. A patent may claim priority through a chain of applications, but this requires continuity of written description and enablement support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 in each of the applications back to the earliest asserted filing date. Id. This date may be referred to as the “priority date” or “effective filing date” of the patent. Priority should be considered in context with the respective burdens of the parties. In an inter partes review, Petitioner bears the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability, which never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379. Petitioner has the initial burden of production to show a reference is prior art. Id. The burden of production then shifts to Patent Owner to refute Petitioner’s argument by either showing the prior art does not actually render the claims unpatentable or does not qualify as prior art (such as by showing that the patent at issue is entitled to priority to an earlier application that pre- dates a prior art reference). Id. The burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to respond to Patent Owner’s argument. Id. The Board then IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 9 evaluates all of the evidence and determines whether Petitioner has satisfied its burden of persuasion regarding unpatentability. Id. At the institution stage, the Board has applied a similar burden- shifting approach with respect to the effective filing date of the challenged claims. The framework we apply here was explained in Polaris Wireless, Inc. v. TruePosition, Inc., IPR2013-00323, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 15, 2013): In an inter partes review, the burden is on Petitioner to show a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. With respect to entitlement to earlier effective filing dates, the Patent Owner is not presumed to be entitled to the earlier filing dates of ancestral applications which do not share the same disclosure. But, the issue first has to be raised by Petitioner in its petition, by identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral applications allegedly lacking § 112, first paragraph, written description and enabling disclosure support for the claims based on the identified features. Then, the Patent Owner has to make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date or dates, in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by Petitioner. Id. at 29; see also Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., IPR2017- 01980, Paper 9 at 9–10 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2018) (discussing Dynamic); Franklin Elec. Co. v. Liberty Pumps, Inc., IPR2017-00113, Paper 14 at 12– 13 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (same); Lupin Ltd. v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01775, Paper 15 at 10–11 (PTAB Mar. 1, 2016) (same). 2. Effective Filing Date of the ’073 Patent The ’073 patent’s filing date is February 17, 2017. Through a granted petition to correct its claim of priority (see Ex. 1004, part 1 of 3, 1–25), the ’073 patent asserts priority benefits under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to earlier filing dates as a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 12/176,984, filed July 21, 2008 (“’984 Application”), which is a continuation-in-part of IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 10 Application No. 11/257,912, filed October 25, 2005 (Ex. 1011, the “’912 Application”), which is a continuation-in-part of Application No. 09/933,493, filed August 20, 2001 (Ex. 1010, “’493 Application”).2 As mentioned, for purposes of institution, Petitioner has the burden of showing sufficiently that the patents or publications relied upon are prior art. See Dynamic, supra. In ground 1, Petitioner alleges “Kamvar was filed on June 22, 2004, and published December 22, 2005, making it prior art to the ’073 patent under at least §102(e).” Pet. 5; Ex. 1005. Specifically, Petitioner contends that “[t]he claims of the ’073 Patent are not entitled to the . . . priority date of the 2001 [’493] application” because it “does not provide support for ‘a cache of query strings and search results based on content queries received from multiple users,’ as recited by claim 1 of the ’073 Patent, on which all other claims depend.”3 Pet. 3–5. Petitioner alleges that the claimed feature was added as new matter in the later-filed ’912 Application and ’984 Application. Id. at 4. To the contrary, Patent Owner contends that the “cache” limitation is supported by the ’493 Application. Prelim. Resp. 10–22. Patent Owner notes that, “[t]o claim priority to a prior application, that application must ‘describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as 2 Although the ’493 application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to provisional application 60/951,850 filed July 25, 2007, Patent Owner does not assert priority to the provisional filing date in this proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp. 3 For the sake of brevity, this claim element is referenced as the “cache” limitation at points in the remainder of this decision. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 11 of the filing date sought.’” Id. at 14 (citing Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571–1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he exact terms need not be used in haec verba,” rather “the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter.” Id. We find Patent Owner’s evidence shows sufficiently that the claim limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results based on content queries received from multiple users” is supported by the ’493 Application. As Patent Owner notes, § 112 ¶ 1 support does not require literal support, word for word, in the priority application, but only that the equivalent description is present there. See Lockwood, supra. Patent Owner notes that the “Content-based Cache” 222 (see Figure 2 of the ’493 Application) is defined as “[a] persistent store of Queries and corresponding Result Sets executed by a Content Engine for a specific Content Channel.” Prelim. Resp. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1010, 18, 27; Ex. 2028 ¶ 38). This establishes that the ’493 Application provides § 112 ¶ 1 support for a server-side cache of content queries and corresponding search results. Patent Owner further notes that the ’493 Application states that “[e]nd users of the present invention experience an unprecedented level of user- friendliness accessing information that is guaranteed to be up-to-date while being efficiently cached for speedy access as the number of simultaneous users grows.” Prelim. Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 1010, 55; Ex. 2028 ¶ 39) (emphasis added). This statement indicates that the cached queries are received from multiple users. Patent Owner’s other evidence also supports this conclusion. See Prelim. Resp. 18 (citing Ex. 1010, 34; Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 41– 42), 19–20 (Ex. 1010, 2–4, 13–14; Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 44–45). IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 12 Patent Owner reproduces Figure 8A of the ’493 Application, which depicts objects “QoResultsCache” and “QoResultsCacheEntry” in cache embodiments that include query strings and search result sets received from multiple users. Prelim. Resp. 16-17 (citing Ex. 1010, Fig. 8, ¶ 117; Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 46–47). Patent Owner thus demonstrates sufficiently that the cache includes query strings and their corresponding search results from queries of multiple users. “When neither the PTO nor the Board has previously considered priority, there is simply no reason to presume that claims in a CIP application are entitled to the effective filing date of an earlier filed application.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, Patent Owner has demonstrates that the ’493 Application supports the “cache” limitation under § 112 ¶ 1. Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 50–54). Further, Patent Owner’s expert testifies that support for the “cache” limitation is present in each application from the ’493 Application to the ’073 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 21–22 (citing Ex. 2028 ¶¶ 50–54). In addition, each application in the chain of priority applications incorporates the prior applications by reference, so the ’073 Patent cumulates the written description and enablement disclosures of the earlier applications. Ex. 1001, code (63), 1:7–30; Ex. 1004, part 1 of 3, 125 (the ’984 Application), 167, 198 ¶ 1, 201 ¶ 1 (the ’912 Application), part 2 of 3, 135–136 ¶ 2 (the ’073 Patent). For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s evidence shows sufficiently that the ’493 Application provides support under § 112 ¶ 1 for the claim limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results based on content queries received from multiple users” as recited in claim 1, and IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 13 thereby all dependent claims, of the ’073 Patent. As Petitioner’s only priority contention alleged with specificity is that the “cache” limitation is missing from the ’493 Application, and Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that the equivalent disclosure is present there, Patent Owner has shown sufficiently that the ’073 Patent is entitled to a priority date of August 20, 2001, for purposes of this Decision. 3. Conclusion for Ground 1 In ground 1, Petitioner asserts Kamvar as prior art against claims 1, 6– 8, and 11 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 5–38. Petitioner asserts that Kamvar, filed June 22, 2004 and published December 22, 2005, is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 5; Ex. 1005, code (22), code (43). Petitioner argues that the ’493 application, to which the ’073 Patent claims priority, fails to support claim 1’s limitation of “a cache of query strings and search results based on content queries received from multiple users” under § 112 ¶ 1. Patent Owner, however, sufficiently demonstrates that the ’073 Patent supports the “cache” limitation of claim 1 under § 112 ¶ 1. Therefore, in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by Petitioner, Patent Owner sufficiently shows that the ’073 Patent is entitled to priority of the ’493 Application’s filing date of August 20, 2001, which pre-dates Kamvar’s filing date of June 22, 2004. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show that Kamvar is prior art to the ’073 Patent. For this reason, ground 1 of the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that at least one claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 14 B. Ground 2: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 over Kamvar and Baluja In ground 2, Petitioner asserts Kamvar in combination with Baluja as prior art against claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 12 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 38– 55. As noted above in Section II.A, Petitioner argues that the “cache” limitation of claim 1 of the ’073 Patent lacks support under § 112 ¶ 1 in the ’493 Application. Patent Owner, though, has shown sufficiently that the “cache” limitation of claim 1 of the ’073 Patent has written description and enablement support under § 112 ¶ 1 and thus, for purposes of this Decision, is entitled to the priority date of August 20, 2001 established by the ’493 Application’s filing. Because Kamvar’s filing date is June 22, 2004 and thus after the ’073 Patent’s priority date of August 20, 2001, Petitioner fails to demonstrate sufficiently that Kamvar is prior art to the ’073 Patent. Petitioner asserts that Baluja, filed December 3, 2004 and published June 8, 2006, is prior art to the ’073 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Pet. 38; Ex. 1006, code (22), code (43). As discussed above, for purposes of this Decision, the ’073 Patent’s priority date is August 20, 2001, which is before Baluja’s filing date of December 3, 2004. Therefore, Petitioner does not meet its burden to show that Baluja is prior art to the ’073 Patent. Prelim. Resp. 30–31; Ex. 1006. Accordingly, ground 2 of the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable. C. Ground 3: Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 over Kravets, Porter and Barr In ground 3, Petitioner asserts the combination of Kravets, Porter and Barr against claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 1, 56–86. Petitioner asserts that Porter, a published application, claims priority to a IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 15 provisional application filed on November 21, 2000, and is prior art to the ’073 Patent under § 102(e). Pet. 56; Ex. 1008, code (22), code (43). Petitioner contends Dr. Myler’s testimony shows § 112 ¶ 1 support in the Porter provisional application (Ex. 1013) for Porter’s claim 7 in asserting that Porter is prior art to the ’073 Patent as of the Porter provisional application’s filing date. Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–83). Patent Owner contends that the Petition must show (1) that Porter’s provisional application provides § 112 ¶ 1 support for the claims of Porter (the published application); and (2) that Porter’s provisional application supports the allegations in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 34–35 (citing Dynamic, 800 F.3d at 1380, 1382; Intex Recreational Corp v. Team Worldwide Corp., IPR2018-00859, Paper 128 at 26 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2019); In re Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Patent Owner further contends Petitioner cites to Porter as teaching at least one limitation of every challenged claim in Ground 3. However, there is not any overlap between the cited portions of Porter and the provisional. Throughout Ground 3, Petitioner cites Porter Figs. 2, 4 and ¶¶5, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 30, 32, 33, 39, 41. None of those figures or paragraphs are in the provisional. Compare EX1008 with EX1013. At no point does Petitioner attempt to identify an equivalent disclosure in the provisional. Thus, for this additional reason, Petitioner has not shown that any of the Porter disclosure it cites is entitled to the priority date of the provisional. This is fatal to Ground 3. Id. at 38. Although Petitioner attempts to show that Porter’s provisional application supports claim 7 (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 82–83), we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to show that the provisional application supports the portions of Porter relied upon to challenge the ’073 Patent’s claims. See IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 16 Giacomini, 612 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“an applicant is not entitled to a patent if another’s patent discloses the same invention, which was carried forward from an earlier U.S. provisional application or U.S. non- provisional application”). As Patent Owner notes above, there are significant differences between Porter and its provisional application, and one cannot assume that disclosure in Porter is necessarily present in the provisional. Compare Ex. 1008 and Ex. 1013. Therefore, Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show that Porter’s provisional application supports the portions of Porter’s published application relied upon in ground 3. See Dynamic, 800 F.3d at 1380, 1382. In ground 3, Petitioner relies on Porter to disclose search-engine data and displayable data, which allows for displaying search results immediately without requiring selection of a link, for limitations [1d] to [1h] of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 64–80. Without Porter, Petitioner’s mapping fails to show that each element of the claims is disclosed in the prior art because Kravets’s HTML/JavaScripts are not the displayable search result data recited in limitations [1d] to [1h] of the ’073 Patent. Pet. 64. Petitioner relies on Barr merely to disclose a “query identification number” to identify a search query of a user. Pet. 77. The Petition does not show sufficiently that the combination of Kravets and Barr, without Porter, renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Petitioner relies on Porter alone, or with Kravets, to teach the limitations of claims 2, 4, 5 and 8–11 of the ’073 Patent. See Pet. 80–86. Without Porter, Petitioner’s mappings fail to show sufficiently the obviousness of these dependent claims. Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that Porter is prior art to the ’073 Patent, and ground 3 of the Petition fails to present a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’073 Patent is unpatentable. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 17 III. REMAINING MATTERS Because we have decided to deny the Petition for the reasons discussed above in Section II, we do not reach the remaining issues raised in the briefings. These matters include arguments concerning motivation to combine the alleged prior art references (Prelim. Resp. 42–43, 48); claim elements alleged to be missing from the asserted prior art (Prelim. Resp. 23– 30, 31–34, 39–49); alleged lack of particularity in the challenges (Prelim. Resp. 29, 31, 33–34, 39, 46, 48); discretionary denial under § 314(a) (Prelim. Resp. 49–54; Reply 10; Sur-Reply 5); and alleged failure to name all real parties in interest under § 312(a)(2) (Prelim. Resp. 54–63; Reply 1– 9; Sur-Reply 1–5; Sur-Sur-Reply 1–2). IV. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertions that claims 1, 2 and 4–12 of the ’073 Patent would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, we decline to institute trial on claims 1, 2 and 4–12 on the grounds of unpatentability asserted by Petitioner. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Petition for inter partes review is denied. IPR2020-01201 Patent 10,311,073 B2 18 For Petitioner: Trenton Ward A. Grace Mills FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP Trenton.ward@finnegan.com Gracie.mills@finnegan.com Ashraf A. Fawzy Jung Hahm UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC afawzy@unifiedpatents.com jung@unifiedpatents.com For Patent Owner: Leslie V. Payne Christopher L. Limbacher HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP lpayne@hpcllp.com climbacher@hpcllp.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation