Log in
E-mail
Password
Show password
Remember
Forgot password ?
Become a member for free
Sign up
Sign up
New member
Sign up for FREE
New customer
Discover our services
Settings
Settings
Dynamic quotes 
OFFON

INTEL CORPORATION

(INTC)
  Report
SummaryQuotesChartsNewsRatingsCalendarCompanyFinancialsConsensusRevisions 
SummaryMost relevantAll NewsAnalyst Reco.Other languagesPress ReleasesOfficial PublicationsSector newsMarketScreener Strategies

A Procedural Bias Favors Patent Owners In IPRs

11/09/2021 | 05:12am EST

Many have argued that the PTAB is biased against patent owners, but one has to wonder whether they are taking into account the procedural benefits afforded to patent owners. As Intel experienced in its recent IPR, a petitioner gets one blind chance to make out its case for unpatentability. Intel Corp. v. XMTT, Inc., IPR2020-00145, Paper 37 (May 11, 2021).

The patent owner, on the other hand, can try one set of arguments in its Preliminary Response and then, after receiving guidance from the Board's Institution Decision, can try a second set of arguments.

The patent challenged by Intel was directed to a computing system that could seamlessly transition between a serial processing mode and a parallel processing mode. The claimed apparatus comprised, among other elements, "a serial processor adapted to execute software instructions in a software program primarily in serial" and "a plurality of parallel processors adapted to execute software instructions in the software program primarily in parallel."

In its first try, Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response that "adapted to" meant "designed to" rather than the broader meaning of "configured to." Aiding the cause of patent owners, the PTAB had changed its claim construction standard from broadest reasonable interpretation to the current district court litigation standard of plain and ordinary meaning, as set forth byPhillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and its progeny.

The Board, nevertheless, found that the specification supported the broader "configured to" meaning.

Learning from the Board's Institution Decision, Patent Owner took advantage of a second try in its Response after institution. Patent Owner argued that a certain prior art reference had processors that performed serial and parallel processing equally well, not "primarily" one or the other.

This triggered a claim construction focus on finding a specific meaning for "primarily" with respect to "in serial" and "in parallel." At oral hearing, the Board presented its own claim interpretation that differed from that of either party. In the Board's view, "the processors must be adapted to execute so that the system (as contrasted to the individual processors) executes primarily in serial or parallel." The parties were given the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing.

In its Final Written Decision, the Board adopted its own claim interpretation. The Board was influenced by other language in the claim reciting a "transition from a serial processing mode to a parallel processing mode". It is the system that executes in a mode and, according to the Board, the claim requires a serial processor adapted to perform with the system primarily in serial mode.

Given the Board's claim interpretation, Patent Owner argued that the Petition failed to address the system executing primarily in serial or primarily in parallel. The Board agreed. Petitioner had its one chance to predict how the claim would be interpreted and the Petition got it wrong. Even though Petitioner addressed patentability in its supplemental briefing after first learning of the Board's claim construction, the Board held that the "Supplemental Brief cannot cure the deficiencies of the Petition."

The Board did go on to express its total disagreement with the discussion of the prior art in the Supplemental Brief such that it would rule in favor of Patent Owner anyway. Nevertheless, it is brutally apparent that the procedure was capable of controlling the decision.

The Petitioner must explain in the Petition how the properly construed claim is unpatentable, without a second chance and without claim construction guidance from the Board. Patent Owner, by contrast, has two opportunities to present arguments, the second one after the Board's Institution Decision. Thus, petitioners are forewarned that a great deal of care and experienced judgment must go into drafting a winning Petition.

Originally published 4 August, 2021

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Robert M. Asher
Sunstein
125 Summer Street
Boston
Boston
MA 02110-1618
UNITED STATES

© Mondaq Ltd, 2021 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source Business Briefing

All news about INTEL CORPORATION
05:37pIntel Likely to Top Q4 Sales Consensus, Raise 2022 Outlook Amid Long-Term Challenges, B..
MT
09:32aToday on Wall Street: It's going to be an eventful week
09:27aIntel Invests in Ohio
AQ
09:27aIntel Announces Next US Site with Landmark Investment in Ohio
AQ
09:27aIntel's Manufacturing Webcast (Replay)
AQ
01/21Intel's move into Ohio brings new tech kudos, competitionáfor talent
RE
01/21Tech Stocks Extending Afternoon Slide
MT
01/21Tech Stocks Floundering This Afternoon, Dragged Under in Broader Markets Selloff
MT
01/21Intel to Invest More Than $20 Billion to Build Chip Factories in Ohio
MT
01/21Europe kept waiting as Intel commits to new U.S. chip factories
RE
More news
Analyst Recommendations on INTEL CORPORATION
More recommendations
Financials (USD)
Sales 2021 73 764 M - -
Net income 2021 18 456 M - -
Net Debt 2021 3 842 M - -
P/E ratio 2021 11,5x
Yield 2021 2,67%
Capitalization 211 B 211 B -
EV / Sales 2021 2,92x
EV / Sales 2022 2,98x
Nbr of Employees 110 600
Free-Float 99,9%
Chart INTEL CORPORATION
Duration : Period :
Intel Corporation Technical Analysis Chart | MarketScreener
Full-screen chart
Technical analysis trends INTEL CORPORATION
Short TermMid-TermLong Term
TrendsNeutralNeutralBearish
Income Statement Evolution
Consensus
Sell
Buy
Mean consensus HOLD
Number of Analysts 42
Last Close Price 51,94 $
Average target price 56,26 $
Spread / Average Target 8,31%
EPS Revisions
Managers and Directors
Patrick P. Gelsinger Chief Executive Officer & Director
David A. Zinsner Executive VP, Chief Financial & Accounting Officer
Omar S. Ishrak Independent Chairman
Daniel J. McKeon Vice President-Information Technology Group
Ann B. Kelleher Senior Vice President & GM-Technology Development
Sector and Competitors
1st jan.Capi. (M$)
INTEL CORPORATION0.85%211 647
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED6.18%599 985
NVIDIA CORPORATION-20.53%584 350
BROADCOM INC.-19.86%220 157
QUALCOMM, INC.-9.81%184 722
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS-6.81%162 208