Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al. v. Georgia Tech Research Corporation

Petition

Petition summary

- Case Number: [IPR2025-00383](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383)
- Patent #: [7,489,914](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1001)
- Filed: February 10, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/murata-electronics-north-america-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Georgia Tech Research Corporation](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/georgia-tech-research-corp)
- Challenged Claims: 1-2, 4-20

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Multi-Band Low Noise Amplifier with Embedded Passives
- Brief Description: The [’914](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1001) patent relates to multi-band radio frequency (RF) transceivers. It discloses a multi-band low noise amplifier (LNA) that utilizes a single signal path for multiple frequency bands and incorporates embedded passive components within a multi-layer organic substrate to reduce the device's size and component count.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability

#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Francisco and JP466 - Claims 1-2, 5, 12-20 are obvious over Francisco in view of JP466.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) (Patent [6,128,508](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1005)), [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) ([JP 2001-267466A](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1006)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) teaches a multi-band RF device (amplifier) operable at two distinct frequencies (e.g., cellular and PCS bands) comprising an active device (FET), a first passive network at the input, and a second passive network at the output. [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) was also asserted to teach that the impedances of these networks are inherently different at each frequency to achieve optimal performance. Petitioner contended that while [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) describes the circuit architecture, it is silent on the physical implementation. [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) allegedly remedies this by teaching an amplifier module where passive components, such as matching and bias circuits, are embedded as conductor patterns within a multi-layer organic substrate.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005)’s amplifier circuit with [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006)’s packaging technology because both references are in the same field and address the common problem of miniaturizing RF devices. Implementing [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005)'s circuit using [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006)'s known module technique with embedded passives was presented as an obvious design choice to achieve predictable benefits of reduced size, improved electrical performance, and enhanced reliability.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner asserted a high expectation of success, as the combination involves applying a common packaging practice (embedding passives) to a standard amplifier circuit. Both references describe similar devices performing the same function, making the integration predictable.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Francisco, JP466, and Hirayama - Claims 4 and 6 are obvious over Francisco and JP466 in view of Hirayama.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) (Patent [6,128,508](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1005)), [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) ([JP 2001-267466A](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1006)), [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008) (Application # [2002/0118067](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1008)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued the combination of [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) and [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) teaches the multi-band LNA with embedded passives, and that [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008) supplies the limitation of using a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) as the active device. [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008) was cited for its explicit teaching that a multi-band amplifier can be designed with either a BJT or a FET, treating the choice as a design option.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to substitute the FET in the [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005)-[JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) combination with a BJT as taught by [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008). This was framed as a simple choice between two common transistor types. [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008)'s disclosure that a BJT can achieve higher gain would have provided a specific motivation to make the substitution for improved amplifier performance.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Success was deemed predictable because the modification involves substituting one known type of transistor for another in a conventional amplifier architecture, a change [Hirayama](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1008) itself suggests is interchangeable and within the skill of a POSITA.

#### Ground 3: Obviousness over Francisco, JP466, and Okubora - Claims 7-11 are obvious over Francisco and JP466 in view of Okubora.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005) (Patent [6,128,508](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1005)), [JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) ([JP 2001-267466A](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1006)), [Okubora](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1007) ([EP 1 189 345 A2](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1007)).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted the [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005)-[JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) combination teaches the multi-band LNA on an organic substrate, and that [Okubora](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1007) teaches the specific use of liquid crystalline polymer (LCP) for that substrate, as required by the challenged claims. [Okubora](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1007) was shown to disclose a high-frequency module using an organic resin substrate and explicitly identifies LCP as a preferred material for its superior high-frequency characteristics and low loss tangent. [Okubora](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1007) also teaches using LCP in combination with other materials, including hydrocarbons.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to use LCP, as taught by [Okubora](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1007), as the substrate material for the [Francisco](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1005)-[JP466](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00383/doc/1006) device to leverage LCP's known advantages in RF applications. This was presented as a simple substitution of a known, superior material to perform its established function, thereby achieving benefits like improved electrical performance, moisture resistance, and cost-effectiveness.
    - **Expectation of Success:** Petitioner argued the outcome was predictable, as it involves using a well-known dielectric material (LCP) in a multi-layer substrate for an RF application, which was a standard practice at the time of the invention.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under both 35 U.S.C. §325(d) and §314(a).
- For §325(d), Petitioner contended the asserted prior art combinations are new and were not previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution of the [’914](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1001) patent.
- For §314(a), Petitioner argued that under the *Fintiv* factors, institution is strongly favored because the parallel district court litigation is in its earliest stages, with a complaint having been recently filed and no scheduling order or discovery yet to occur. The projected Final Written Decision (FWD) date would precede the likely trial date by more than a year.
- Petitioner also noted that *General Plastic* factors are inapplicable, as this is the first inter partes review (IPR) filed against the [’914](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1001) patent.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests that the Board institute an inter partes review and cancel claims 1-2 and 4-20 of Patent [7,489,914](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00383/1001) as unpatentable.

Multi-band RF amplifier patent faces 3 obviousness challenges: Francisco & JP466 art cited against 19 claims over embedded passive component design.

IPR2025-00383

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. v. Georgia Tech Research Corporation