Tesla Inc v. Intellectual Ventures II

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00217
• Patent #: 10,952,153
• Filed: November 26, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Tesla, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Intellectual Ventures II LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-5, 10-15, and 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Uplink Power Control in a Wireless Communication System
• Brief Description: The ’153 patent discloses methods for controlling uplink transmit power in a wireless communication system. The claimed invention recites a user equipment (UE) that receives an indication to enable transmit power control (TPC) command accumulation, receives scheduling information and a multi-level TPC command on a single physical channel, and transmits an uplink signal based on this information.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Andersson, Baker, and Khan - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 11-12, and 14-15 are obvious over Andersson in view of Baker and Khan.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Andersson (Patent 6,334,047), Baker (Application # 2001/0036238), and Khan (Application # 2004/0190485).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Andersson, the primary reference, teaches a CDMA system with combined open and closed-loop power control, including multi-level TPC commands and a generic "power control indicator" flag to select a power control scheme. The combination with Baker allegedly provides the claimed "indication that...TPC command accumulation is enabled," as Baker explicitly teaches using a signaling bit (a Power Control Algorithm bit) for this exact purpose. The combination with Khan was argued to supply the limitation of receiving "scheduling information" and the TPC command on a "single physical channel," as Khan teaches multiplexing scheduling grants and TPC bits onto a single Walsh channel, which is a physical channel.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Baker with Andersson as a simple substitution to implement Andersson's generic indicator with Baker's known and specific technique for enabling TPC accumulation. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would combine Khan to improve the efficiency of Andersson’s system by using Khan’s well-known technique of transmitting control information (scheduling grants and TPC commands) on a single dedicated control channel, thereby reducing complexity and latency.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that because Baker states its technique is suitable for a range of systems like Andersson's, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success. Combining Khan's well-known signaling technique into Andersson's system, which omits such details, would be a predictable application of a standard method.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Zeira, Baker, Khan, and Tong - Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10-12, 14-15, and 20 are obvious over Zeira in view of Baker, Khan, and Tong.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Zeira (Patent 6,600,772), Baker (Application # 2001/0036238), Khan (Application # 2004/0190485), and Tong (Patent 6,529,741).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Zeira, as the primary reference, teaches a combined power control system where a network operator sets a weighting factor (α) that determines whether the UE uses open-loop, closed-loop, or combined control. Setting this factor to enable closed-loop mode inherently enables TPC command accumulation, thus serving as the claimed "indication." To the extent Zeira does not explicitly teach a multi-level TPC command, Tong was added for its disclosure of using multiple bits to signal different power step sizes. Khan was again added to teach transmitting scheduling information and TPC commands on a single physical channel. Baker was cited to support the conventionality of a UE receiving such control parameters from a network device.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Tong’s multi-level TPC commands into Zeira's system to improve performance in dynamic environments, a benefit explicitly taught by Tong and recognized as a need by Zeira. The motivation to add Khan is the same as in Ground 1: improving efficiency by using a known technique to consolidate control signaling.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued that combining Tong's explicit multi-level command structure was a predictable way to implement the variable step sizes suggested by Zeira. The combination with Khan was a predictable application of a known method to improve channel resource efficiency, given the close technical overlap between the systems.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges for claims 3 and 13 (Grounds 2 and 4) by adding Dick (Application # 2004/0077370) to the primary combinations. Dick was cited for its teaching of transmitting the uplink signal on a standard uplink shared channel, a common 3GPP practice.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. Under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), the asserted prior art and arguments were not substantively considered during prosecution, which involved no prior-art rejections. Regarding discretionary denial under Fintiv, Petitioner asserted that the parallel district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with a proposed trial date well after the projected Final Written Decision (FWD) in this inter partes review (IPR), and that minimal investment has been made in the parallel case.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-5, 10-15, and 20 of the ’153 patent as unpatentable.