Searchmetrics, Inc.v.Brightedge TechnologiesDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 2, 201512854644 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 12 571.272.7822 Entered: February 2, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ SEARCHMETRICS, INC. and SEARCHMETRICS GMBH, Petitioner, v. BRIGHTEDGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner. _______________ Case IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 _______________ Before MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN, and BART A. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judges. GERSTENBLITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Searchmetrics, Inc. and Searchmetrics GmbH (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting institution of inter partes review of claims 1–9 and 11–14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,478,700 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’700 patent”). BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. (“Patent IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 2 Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 10, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in [the 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.” Inter partes review is instituted only if the petition supporting the asserted ground demonstrates “that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). For the reasons given below, on this record we find that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’700 patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’700 patent. B. Related Proceedings The parties represent that the ’700 patent is asserted in BrightEdge Technologies, Inc. v. Searchmetrics GmbH and Searchmetrics, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-01009-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1. C. The Prior Art Petitioner relies on the following prior art references: Mike Moran and Bill Hunt, Search Engine Marketing, Inc. Driving Search Traffic to Your Company’s Web Site, IBM PRESS (2006) (Ex. 1004, “Moran”); U.S. Patent No. 8,396,742 B1, issued Mar. 12, 2013 (Ex. 1005, “Blume”); U.S. Patent Application No. 2008/0071767, published Mar. 20, 2008 (Ex. 1006, “Grieselhuber”); and IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 3 SEO Tools Guide – Technical User Manual, 701-296, AOL (2006) (Ex. 1007, “SEO Tools Guide”).1 D. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 1–9 and 11–14 of the ’700 patent on the following grounds:2 Reference(s) Basis Claim(s) challenged Moran § 102(b) 1–3, 5–7, and 11–14 Blume § 102(e) 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 Moran and Grieselhuber § 103(a) 6 and 13 Blume and Grieselhuber § 103(a) 6 and 13 Moran and SEO Tools Guide § 103(a) 4 Blume and SEO Tools Guide § 103(a) 4 E. The ’700 Patent The ’700 patent is directed to methods of optimizing placement of references to an entity. Ex. 1001, Abstract. The methods include “searching at least one channel on a network for references to the entity using a plurality of search terms to generate search results” and scoring “[t]he references associated with each of the plurality of search terms . . . to generate scores for the references within the search results with respect to the entity.” Id. at 2:9–15. The methods also include correlating “[c]onversions by one or more visits [to] the entity with the search terms that 1 “SEO” refers to Search Engine Optimization. Ex. 1007, 9. 2 Petitioner supports its challenge with a declaration executed by Ivan Zatkovich on September 3, 2014 (Ex. 1008, “Zatkovich Declaration”). IPR2 Paten direc 17. to th with rate meth e.g., deter keyw exam num of th to th 014-0122 t 8,478,70 ted the vis The metho e entity an in the sear and the tot Figure 2 Figure 2 od of opti id. at 5:40 mining se ord datab ple, “prev ber of con ose conve e search te 7 0 B2 its to the e ds may fu d displayin ch results al value.” of the ’70 of the ’70 mizing pla –41. The arch terms ase. Id. at ious actio versions as rsions[,]” i rms is rec ntity to de rther inclu g the sear with respe Id. at 2:18 0 patent is 0 patent “i cement of method sh , which m 5:42–44. ns related sociated w s retrieved eived at ste 4 termine a de “determ ch terms, ct to the en –21. reproduce llustrates reference own in Fig ay include At step 21 to the netw ith the se . Id. at 5: p 220; thi conversio ining a to the scores tity, the v d below. a flowchar s to an ent ure 2 beg keywords 0, interna ork to det arch terms 49–52. Th rd party d n rate.” Id tal value o for the ref isits, the c t of an exe ity.” Id. at ins at step retrieved l data, incl ermine a t ” and the “ ird party d ata may in . at 2:15– f the visit erences onversion mplary 2:48–49; 200 by from a uding, for otal total valu ata relate clude “any s e d IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 5 desired information,” such as “information about network activity related to the search terms.” Id. at 5:55–58. At step 230, a search is performed in which the search terms are used to search any number of channels within the network for references to the entity. Id. at 5:66–6:4. The search may include “scoring the results of the search of the network with respect to the entity,” and the score may include “a position at which references to the entity are displayed within the search results.” Id. at 6:4–8. At step 240, the results of one or more of steps 200–210 may be analyzed to “identify opportunities and to forecast results of initiatives at step 250.” Id. at 6:16– 18. F. Illustrative Claims Claims 1 and 11 are the only independent claims challenged in this proceeding. Claims 2–9 depend from claim 1, and claims 12–14 depend from claim 11. Independent claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced below: 1. A method for optimizing online references to an entity that are non-paid advertisements, the method comprising: searching at least one channel unassociated with paid advertisements on a network for references to the entity unassociated with paid advertisements using a plurality of search terms to generate search results that include a plurality of references; scoring the references to the entity associated with each of the plurality of search terms from the plurality of references to generate scores for the references to the entity; correlating conversions by one or more visits to a website of the entity through the reference with the search terms that directed the visits to the entity to determine a conversion rate; determining a total value of the conversions to the entity; correlating at least the total value of the conversions to the entity associated With the references to the entity and the IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 6 scores for the references to the entity to identify one or more of the plurality of search terms; and for the identified one or more of the plurality of search terms, forecasting an increase in conversions for the references to the entity associated with an increase in the scores for the references to the entity. Ex. 1001, 9:2–23. 11. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to cause a system to perform operations of optimizing online references to an entity that are non-paid advertisements, the operations comprising: searching at least one channel unassociated with paid advertisements on a network for references to the entity unassociated with paid advertisements using a plurality of search terms to generate search results that include a plurality of references; scoring the references to the entity associated with each of the plurality of search terms from the plurality of references to generate scores for the references to the entity; correlating conversions by one or more visits to a website of the entity through the reference with the search terms that directed the visits to the entity to determine a conversion rate; determining a total value of the conversions to the entity; correlating at least the total value of the conversions to the entity associated with the references to the entity and the scores for the references to the entity to identify one or more of the plurality of search terms; and for the identified one or more of the plurality of search terms, forecasting an increase in conversions for the references to the entity associated with an increase in the scores for the references to the entity. Id. at 10:12–36. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 7 II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION We interpret claims of an unexpired patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012) (Claim Construction). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We apply this standard to the claims of the ’700 patent. See Pet. 7–8 (proposing to construe the claims of the ’700 patent in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation standard); Prelim. Resp. 6 (same). In determining whether or not to institute inter partes review, we construe claim terms as necessary to apply the references. Claim constructions may change as a result of the developing record. A. “references” The term “references” is recited in each of the challenged claims. E.g., Ex. 1001, 9:2, 8; id. at 10:14, 17. Petitioner proposes that we construe the term “reference” to mean “a link or a reference to a web page or other media.” Pet. 8. Petitioner asserts that the Specification of the ’700 patent contains language paralleling this construction. Id. (citing Ex. 1001 at 3:16– 18). Patent Owner proposes that we construe the phrases “references to an entity” and “references to the entity” in accordance with their plain and ordinary meaning or, alternatively, as “links and/or references to one or more web pages or other media associated with [an/the] entity.” Prelim. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 8 Resp. 9 (alteration in original). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s proposed construction of “reference” “cannot be incorporated into ‘references to an entity’ or ‘references to the entity’ without rendering the claim language grammatically nonsensical.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner contends that the Specification of the ’700 patent supports its proposed construction. Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1001 at 3:18–21). As reflected above, the principal difference between the parties’ proposed constructions results from the difference in the terms proposed for construction. Patent Owner proposes to include the phrases “to an entity” and “to the entity,” whereas Petitioner does not. This difference results in Patent Owner’s proposed construction including the phrase “associated with [an/the] entity.” Claims 1 and 11 recite the term “references” and the phrases “references to an entity” and “references to the entity.” The preamble of claim 1 and first step of the claimed method illustrate the use of the term and the phrases: “A method for optimizing online references to an entity . . . the method comprising: searching at least one channel . . . for references to the entity . . . using a plurality of search terms to generate search results that include a plurality of references.” Ex. 1001, 9:2–8 (emphases added). The use of the phrase “references to the entity” is clearly drafted to refer back to the previously recited “references to an entity,” relying on that language for antecedent basis. Thus, the phrases “references to an entity” and “references to the entity” are essentially synonymous. The claim, however, also includes the term “references” without the additional “to an entity” or “to the entity” language. The use of the term “references” as a standalone term, i.e., not limited to “an” or “the entity,” reflects that the term is broader than the IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 9 phrases “references to an entity” and “references to the entity.” For example, the recitation in claim 1 of “generat[ing] search results that include a plurality of references” (emphasis added) can include references to entities other than “the entity” recited previously. This interpretation is supported by the use of the standalone term as opposed to either phrase. In other words, the patentee did not draft the clause to read “generat[ing] search results that include a plurality of references to the entity.” Thus, the use of “references” without the modifier “to the entity,” supports our interpretation that the standalone term has a broader meaning than the full phrase “references to the entity.”3 Further, in describing the term “references,” the Specification of the ’700 patent states the following: “FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a system 100 for optimizing placement of references to an entity within one or more channels.” Id. at 3:13–15 (bold omitted; italics added). Both parties rely upon the same portion of the Specification, which follows the above quotation: “The references may include links and/or references to one or more Web Pages or other media, such as display advertisements, associated with the entity. Accordingly, the references can include organic references, online advertisements including display advertisements, new items or any other reference to the entity.” Ex. 1001, 3:18–24 (emphases added). Thus, although the Specification includes the phrase “associated with the entity” when describing the term “references,” the Specification is referring to “[t]he references” just mentioned, which are the “references to an entity.” 3 To be clear, we are not interpreting the term “references” differently as a standalone term as compared to its use in the phrase “references to the entity.” Rather, the difference in construction results solely from the use of the limiting phrase “to the entity.” IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 10 Accordingly, in light of the distinguishing recitations of the phrases “references to an entity” and “references to the entity” as compared to the standalone term “references” in the claims, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the standalone term “references” is limited to “links and/or references to one or more web pages or other media associated with [an/the] entity.” (emphasis added). Rather, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would understand that the term “references” means “links and/or references to one or more web pages or other media.”4 As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the phrase “references to an entity” means “links and/or references to one or more web pages or other media associated with an entity” and that the phrase “references to the entity” means “links and/or references to one or more web pages or other media associated with the entity.” B. Other Terms While Petitioner and Patent Owner present constructions for several other claim terms, no other terms require express construction at this initial stage. III. ANALYSIS A. Anticipation by Moran Claims 1 and 11 and, because of their dependency upon those claims, respectively, claims 2–9 and 12–14 recite, inter alia, “searching at least one channel unassociated with paid advertisements on a network for references to the entity unassociated with paid advertisements using a plurality of 4 Our construction is nearly the same as that proposed by Petitioner, except that Petitioner proposed construing the term in the singular form “reference,” as opposed to the plural form “references” as it appears in the claims. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 11 search terms to generate search results that include a plurality of references.” Ex. 1001, 9:4–8, 10:16–20. Petitioner asserts that Moran discloses each and every element of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 11–14 of the ’700 patent. Pet. 11–23. In particular, Petitioner contends that Moran’s “referrals” disclose the “references” recited in the claims. Id. at 13 (“A total number of search referrals (references) for multiple search terms are identified.”). Petitioner explains that “[a] search referral is a visitor who comes from a search engine to any page within the website using a link.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004, 495).5 Patent Owner raises several arguments in response to Petitioner’s challenge, including that Moran’s “referrals” do not disclose the claimed “references.” Prelim. Resp. 25–26. In particular, Patent Owner contends that whether Petitioner relies upon the “referrals” or “search referrals” disclosed by Moran, each is “wholly different from the claim language.” Id. at 25. Patent Owner asserts that “‘a link or a reference to a web page or other media’ is not satisfied by disclosure of an ‘event of a page being viewed after viewing a previous webpage.’” Id. at 25–26. Moran is directed to the basics of search engines and search engine marketing and discusses search engine optimization. Ex. 1004, 324–66. For purposes of illustration, Moran discloses a fictitious company, Snap Electronics, and uses this company and its search marketing campaigns to discuss the need to set up search marketing and then to track and measure that search marketing success in various ways. See, e.g., id. at 492, 478– 506, 174–200. Moran includes a “Glossary” in which it defines numerous terms used therein. Id. at 526–54. In particular, Moran defines “referral” as 5 Exhibit pin citations are to the page numbers of the exhibit, rather than the page number of the particular reference included as the exhibit. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 12 “[t]he Web metrics term for the event of a page being viewed after viewing a previous page.” Id. at 545 (emphasis added). Moran explains that “Web metrics systems capture the referrer URL for each page for each page view so that referrals from particular places, such as search engines, can be counted and analyzed.” Id. Moran also defines “search referral” as “[t]he Web metrics term for the event of a page being viewed after viewing a search results page.” Id. at 548 (emphasis added). As reflected above, Moran defines “referral” and “search referral” as an “event of a page being viewed after viewing” either a previous page or a search results page. The ’700 patent, however, does not use the term “references” to refer to an “event of a page being viewed after viewing” either a previous page or a search results page. Rather, as noted above, we construed the term “references” to mean “links and/or references to one or more Web Pages or other media.” See supra Section II.A. Thus, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of showing that Moran’s “referrals” or “search referrals” disclose “references” as recited in the challenged claims. Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Moran anticipates claims 1–3, 5–7, and 11–14 of the ’700 patent. B. Anticipation by Blume Claims 1 and 11 and, because of their dependency upon those claims, respectively, claims 2–9 and 12–14 recite, inter alia, “scoring the references to the entity associated with each of the plurality of search terms from the plurality of references to generate scores for the references to the entity” and “correlating at least the total value of the conversions to the entity associated IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 13 with the references to the entity and the scores for the references to the entity to identify one or more of the plurality of search terms.” Ex. 1001, 9:9–11, 17–20, 10:21–23, 29–32. Petitioner asserts that Blume discloses each and every element of claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’700 patent. Pet. 23–33. With respect to the “scoring” step recited above, Petitioner contends that Blume “discloses scoring references for the entity using a synergy score.” Id. at 25. With respect to the correlating step recited above, Petitioner contends that Blume “discloses correlating the value of the conversion to the entity and identifying search terms with high ROI (return on investment) value or ROI value above a predetermined threshold.” Id. at 26. Patent Owner raises several arguments in response to Petitioner’s challenge, including that, although the claims recite “correlating . . . the total value of the conversions to the entity associated with the references to the entity and the scores for the references to the entity,” Petitioner’s challenge “fail[s] to even mention the scores for the references to the entity.” Prelim. Resp. 46. Blume is directed to a “computer-implementable methodology for quantitatively assessing the impact of paid search advertising on the total visits (paid and organic search-based visits) from search engines and utilizing this assessment to improve search engine marketing performance.” Ex. 1005, Abstract. Blume discloses computing a “synergy score for select search engine keywords of interest or coefficients in a synergy equation[,]” which “can be used to repeatedly compute the total ROAS [return on advertising spend] and other performance metrics on a go-forward basis IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 14 without the time lag inherent in computing the synergy score itself.” Id. at 3:66–4:7. As noted above, Petitioner asserts that Blume’s disclosure of “correlating the value of the conversion to the entity and identifying search terms with high ROI (return on investment) value or ROI value above a predetermined threshold” teaches the claim recitation of “correlating at least the total value of the conversions to the entity associated with the references to the entity and the scores for the references to the entity to identify one or more of the plurality of search terms.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:46–57). While column 8, lines 46–57, of Blume discloses sorting keywords based on “[i]ncremental ROI,” Petitioner does not allege that, or explain how, incremental ROI is the same as or equivalent to the synergy score. In other words, Petitioner has not explained how Blume’s sorting keywords based on incremental ROI discloses “correlating . . . the total value of the conversions . . . and the scores for the references to the entity” (emphasis added) as recited in the claims. Accordingly, on the record before us, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Blume anticipates claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of the ’700 patent. C. Obviousness over Moran and Grieselhuber Petitioner asserts that the combination of Moran and Grieselhuber would have rendered the subject matter of claims 6 and 13 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Pet. 33–37. Claims 6 and 13 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively. Ex. 1001, 9:38, 10:41– 42. Petitioner relies upon Moran as disclosing the elements that claims 6 and 13 have in common with claims 1 and 11 based on dependency. Pet. 33 IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 15 (“Each of the features of independent claims 1 and 11 are disclosed by Moran, as detailed in the claim chart above.”). Petitioner does not rely upon Grieselhuber as disclosing the recited “references”; rather, Petitioner relies upon Grieselhuber as disclosing the additional elements recited by claims 6 and 13. Id.; see id. at 36–37 (proposing to combine Grieselhuber’s “competitive listing features” with Moran’s methods); see also Prelim. Resp. 57–58 (noting that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges are directed toward the limitations of the respective dependent claims). Accordingly, for the same reasons we explained in the context of discussing Petitioner’s anticipatory challenge based on Moran, see supra Section III.A., Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Moran and Grieselhuber would have rendered claims 6 and 13 of the ’700 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. D. Obviousness over Blume and Grieselhuber Petitioner asserts that the combination of Blume and Grieselhuber would have rendered the subject matter of claims 6 and 13 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Pet. 37–41. Claims 6 and 13 depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively. Ex. 1001, 9:38, 10:41–42. Petitioner relies upon Blume as disclosing the elements that claims 6 and 13 have in common with claims 1 and 11 based on dependency. Pet. 37–38 (“Each of the features of independent claims 1 and 11 are disclosed by Blume as detailed in the claim chart above.”). Petitioner relies upon Grieselhuber as disclosing the additional elements recited by claims 6 and 13. Id.; see id. at 40–41 (proposing to combine Grieselhuber’s “competitive listing features” with Blume’s methods); see also Prelim. Resp. 57–58 IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 16 (noting that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges are directed toward the limitations of the respective dependent claims). Accordingly, for the same reasons we explained in the context of discussing Petitioner’s anticipatory challenge based on Blume, see supra Section III.B., Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Blume and Grieselhuber would have rendered claims 6 and 13 of the ’700 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. E. Obviousness over Moran and SEO Tools Guide Petitioner asserts that the combination of Moran and SEO Tools Guide would have rendered the subject matter of claim 4 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Pet. 41–45. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 9:32. Petitioner relies upon Moran as disclosing the elements that claim 4 has in common with claim 1 based on dependency. Pet. 41 (“Each of the features of independent claim 1 is disclosed by Moran as detailed in the claim chart above.”). Petitioner does not rely upon SEO Tools Guide as disclosing the recited “references”; rather, Petitioner relies upon SEO Tools Guide as disclosing the additional elements recited by claim 4. Id.; see id. at 45 (proposing to combine SEO Tools Guide’s “keyword finding feature” with Moran’s search engine optimization); see also Prelim. Resp. 57–58 (noting that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges are directed toward the limitations of the respective dependent claims). Accordingly, for the same reasons we explained in the context of discussing Petitioner’s anticipatory challenge based on Moran, see supra Section III.A., Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 17 prevailing on the assertion that Moran and SEO Tools Guide would have rendered claim 4 of the ’700 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. F. Obviousness over Blume and SEO Tools Guide Petitioner asserts that the combination of Blume and SEO Tools Guide would have rendered the subject matter of claim 4 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Pet. 45–49. Claim 4 depends from claim 1. Ex. 1001, 9:32. Petitioner relies upon Blume as disclosing the elements that claim 4 has in common with claim 1 based on dependency. Pet. 45 (“Each of the features of independent claim 1 is disclosed by Blume as detailed in the claim chart above.”). Petitioner relies upon SEO Tools Guide as disclosing the additional elements recited by claim 4. Id.; see id. at 48–49 (proposing to combine SEO Tools Guide’s “keyword finding feature” with Blume’s methods);6 see also Prelim. Resp. 57–58 (noting that Petitioner’s obviousness challenges are directed toward the limitations of the respective dependent claims). Accordingly, for the same reasons we explained in the context of discussing Petitioner’s anticipatory challenge based on Blume, see supra Section III.B., Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertion that Blume and SEO Tools Guide would have rendered claim 4 of the ’700 patent obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. 6 Petitioner and Mr. Zatkovich refer to Moran in their discussion of this challenge based on Blume and SEO Tools Guide. Pet. 48; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 132– 33. We assume, for purposes of our discussion above, that Petitioner and Mr. Zatkovich intended to refer to Blume. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 18 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the information presented in the Petition does not demonstrate that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in challenging claims 1–9 and 11–14 of the ’700 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). V. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted. IPR2014-01227 Patent 8,478,700 B2 19 For PETITIONER: Timothy W. Lohse Harpreet Singh DLA PIPER LLP (US) timothy.lohse@dlapiper.com harpreet.singh@dlapiper.com For PATENT OWNER: Eliot Williams Hopkins Guy Jon Swenson John Gaustad eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com hop.guy@bakerbotts.com jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com john.gaustad@bakerbotts.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation