Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
December 28, 2017, Decided
2016-2080, 2016-2082, 2016-2083
[*1054] [***1146] O'Malley, Circuit Judge.
Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") appeals from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") in three separate inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings, in which the Board found that Microsoft failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,144,182 ("'182 patent") were anticipated or obvious. See Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., No. IPR2014-01457, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7571 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016); Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., No. IPR2014-01458, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7572 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016); Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., No. IPR2014-01459, 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7573 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016). [**2] Because the Board's decisions are supported by substantial evidence and do not rely on an erroneous claim construction, we affirm.
A. The '182 Patent
The '182 patent is entitled "Real Time Video Communications System." The '182 patent discloses "tools and techniques for providing video calling solutions" and relates to real-time video conferencing where two or more users communicate, over a network, in a conference that includes video and audio of each participant. '182 patent, Abstract.
The patent explains that there are various video calling technologies on the market, but [***1147] it states that "there have been no satisfactory video calling options for consumers." Id. at col. 1 ll. 42-46. The '182 patent notes three different types of video [*1055] calling systems available at the time of this patent: (1) professional-grade systems that require complex hardware and are expensive and difficult to use; (2) personal computer systems, such as web cams and video chat software like Skype, that have "far from optimal" call quality, require the use of a personal computer, and use confusing and error-prone soft-ware and hardware; and (3) dedicated video phones that are expensive, require multiple phones to communicate [**3] with others, and fail to provide adequate call quality because they use small screens and operate over a standard "plain old telephone system." Id. at col. 1 l. 46-col. 2 l. 4. The '182 patent claims that it provides a system that "solves these and other deficiencies found in current products." Id. at col. 2 ll. 5-6.
The patented video communication system includes components such as video communication devices, the internet, video sources, display devices, and set-top boxes. Id. at col. 5 l. 40-col. 6 l. 13. The first video communication device captures a video or audio stream from a video source. Id. at col. 5 ll. 49-56. The second video communication device similarly captures a video or audio stream from a second video source. Id. The first and second video communication devices can output the video or audio stream they receive from their respective video source to the display devices. Id. at col. 5 ll. 56-62.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
878 F.3d 1052 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26844 **; 125 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1144 ***; 2017 WL 6613262
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Appellant v. BISCOTTI, INC., Appellee
Prior History: [**1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2014-01457, IPR2014-01458, IPR2014-01459.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,Petitioner,v.BISCOTTI INC.,Patent Owner., 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7572 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interferences, Mar. 17, 2016)MICROSOFT CORPORATION,Petitioner,v.BISCOTTI INC.,Patent Owner., 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7573 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interferences, Mar. 17, 2016)Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti Inc., 2016 Pat. App. LEXIS 7571 (P.T.A.B., Mar. 17, 2016)
video, box, set-top, anticipation, codec, interface, input, capture, embodiments, stream, communication device, instructions, medium, disclosure, network, functions, storage, output, display, microphone, sentence, videoconferencing, invention, discloses, signals, processor, combined, coupled, camera, audiovisual
Patent Law, Anticipation & Novelty, Fact & Law Issues, Jurisdiction & Review, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Infringement Actions, Claim Interpretation, De Novo Review, Description in Prior Patents, Description in Publications, Elements, Anticipation & Novelty, Jurisdiction & Review