CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.

CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.

Opinion

 [*1378]  Dyk, Circuit Judge.

CUPP Computing AS ("CUPP") appeals three inter partes review ("IPR") decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") concluding that petitioner Trend Micro Inc. had shown challenged claims in CUPP's U.S. Patents Nos. 8,631,488 ("'488 patent"),  [*1379]  9,106,683 ("'683 patent"), and 9,843,595 ("'595 patent") unpatentable as obvious over two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,803 ("Gordon") and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0218012 A1 ("Joseph"). We affirm.

Background

The three patents at issue, [**2]  which share a common name and priority date, address the problem of malicious attacks aimed at mobile devices. See J.A. 362, 400, 438. They generally concern systems and methods for waking a mobile device from a power-saving mode and then performing security operations on the device, "such as scanning a storage medium for malware, or updating security applications." J.A. 53.

There are two issues on appeal. First, an issue of claim construction that applies to each of the three patents. And second, an issue unique to the '595 patent: whether substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that either Joseph or Gordon renders obvious a claimed "security agent" on a mobile device, which "perform[s] security services." '595 patent, col. 31, ll. 38-40 & col. 32, ll. 41-43.

The contested claim construction involves the limitation concerning a "security system processor," which appears in every independent claim in the patents. See '488 patent, col. 30, ll. 37-40 & col. 31, ll. 10-13 & col. 32, ll. 18-20; see also '595 patent, col. 31, ll. 25-26 & col. 32, ll. 44-46; '683 patent, col. 30, ll. 37-40 & col. 31, ll. 5-7 & col. 32, ll. 15-18. Claim 10 of the '488 patent is illustrative:

10. A mobile security system, comprising:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.