PTAB

IPR2024-00816

Apple Inc v. Theta IP LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Dynamically-Biased and Impedance-Adjusted Receiver
  • Brief Description: The ’330 patent describes methods for reducing power dissipation in wireless transceivers by dynamically adjusting the receiver’s dynamic range based on signal conditions. The invention proposes adjusting parameters like DC bias current, signal path impedance, and gain to conserve power when operating conditions are better than worst-case.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, 23, 25, 26, 28-29 are obvious over Behbahani in view of Leete and in further view of Tan.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Behbahani (“Adaptive Analog IF Signal Processor for a Wide-Band CMOS Wireless Receiver,” Aug. 2001), Leete (“A 2.4-GHz Low-IF Receiver for Wideband WLAN,” Dec. 2000), and Tan (“A Broad-Band Tunable CMOS Channel-Select Filter,” Apr. 2000).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the combination of these references, which describe different aspects of the same research project, discloses all elements of the challenged claims. Behbahani teaches the core concept of an "adaptive dynamic range" receiver that saves power by switching between a high-power filter for worst-case conditions and a low-power filter for better conditions. It discloses that this switching is based on signal strength measurements and results in power savings. Leete, expressly cited by Behbahani to provide necessary detail, describes the RF front-end circuitry, including the low-noise amplifier (LNA) and mixer, establishing the LNA->mixer->filter topology required by the claims. Tan, also expressly cited by Behbahani for filter design details, explains how switching to the low-power filter increases its impedance (by increasing resistance and decreasing capacitance) and lowers its bias current. This increased impedance and lower bias current, in turn, reduces the AC switching current flowing through the filter, directly mapping to the core limitations of independent claims 1 and 23. Dependent claims were mapped by showing how the combined art teaches specific components (MOS transistors, resistors, capacitors), timing of adjustments (during a signal preamble), and use in a transceiver.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted an exceptionally strong motivation to combine. Behbahani explicitly incorporates Leete and Tan by reference, stating that Leete describes the front-end circuitry and Tan describes the filter design used in its system. A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been directly motivated to consult Leete and Tan to understand and implement the complete receiver system described by Behbahani. The authors of all three papers were part of the same research group, and the references were intended to be read together.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining the references because they were authored by the same research team to describe different, complementary parts of a single, integrated receiver design. The combination represents the assembly of a complete system as envisioned by its creators, not the modification of disparate systems.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner highlighted that the inventor of the ’330 patent, Dr. Tsividis, co-authored a January 2003 article that expressly identified Behbahani’s switched-filter approach as an exemplary method for implementing the very "Dynamic Impedance Scaling" concept that forms the basis of the ’330 patent's claims.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that its obviousness grounds succeed under either its own or the Patent Owner's proposed claim constructions for disputed terms like "impedance" and "switching current" from a parallel district court litigation.
  • To streamline the IPR proceeding, Petitioner proposed adopting the Patent Owner's construction for the "dynamic limitation" (i.e., "dynamically changing/adjust[ing]"), which requires the adjustment to be made "during operation based—at least in part—on information gained during operation." Petitioner contended that Behbahani's system, which adjusts based on signal strength measurements taken during operation, meets this construction.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • The central technical contention was that the ’330 patent’s sole inventor had effectively admitted that Behbahani taught the core inventive concept. In a pre-priority date article on minimizing power dissipation, the inventor described "Dynamic Impedance Scaling" and concluded by citing Behbahani’s use of two scaled, switchable filters as a prime example of how to implement the technique. Petitioner leveraged this as a powerful admission that a POSITA would have viewed Behbahani as teaching the dynamic adjustment of impedance to save power.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Discretion under §325(d): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial is not warranted. Although Behbahani and Tan were cited on the face of the ’330 patent, they were part of a large Information Disclosure Statement and were never substantively discussed, analyzed, or applied in a rejection by the Examiner during prosecution. Furthermore, the primary combination includes Leete, which was never before the Patent and Trademark Office. Therefore, the Examiner did not previously consider the asserted combination.
  • Discretion under §314(a) (General Plastic / Fintiv): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, asserting that the General Plastic factors favor institution because this is Apple's first IPR challenge against the ’330 patent. While another IPR was previously filed by Lenovo, Apple was not a party, did not coordinate with Lenovo, and presents entirely new prior art, arguments, and expert testimony, thus not using the prior case as an unfair "roadmap." Regarding the Fintiv factors, Petitioner proffered a Sotera stipulation, committing that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel district court litigation any invalidity ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

7. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7, 9-13, 16, 23, 25, 26, 28-29 of Patent 7,010,330 as unpatentable.