Court Opinion

ID: 9840816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 15:02:38.651708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:06.384743
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1282    Document: 41    Page: 1   Filed: 09/20/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                TARGET CORPORATION,
                      Appellant

                            v.

             PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC,
                    Cross-Appellant
                ______________________

       2022-1282, 2022-1283, 2022-1338, 2022-1339
                ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00931, IPR2020-00933.
                  ______________________

                Decided: September 20, 2023
                  ______________________

     JAMES LAWRENCE DAVIS, JR., Ropes & Gray LLP, East
 Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by
 JAMES RICHARD BATCHELDER; JOSEF B. SCHENKER, New
 York, NY.

    AARON HAND, Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City,
 CA, argued for cross-appellant. Also represented by
 DENISE MARIE DE MORY.
                ______________________
Case: 22-1282      Document: 41    Page: 2    Filed: 09/20/2023

 2              TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

     Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
 Hughes, Circuit Judge.
      Target appeals decisions of the Patent Trial and Ap-
 peal Board determining that claims 37 and 43 of U.S. Pa-
 tent No. 8,090,359 and claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 of U.S.
 Patent No. 8,374,592 are not unpatentable. Proxicom cross
 appeals the Board’s decisions that claims 1–5, 14–18, 27,
 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent are antici-
 pated by and obvious over Perttila, and claims 19–23 of the
 ’592 patent are obvious over Perttila in view of Insolia. For
 the lead appeal, we reverse the Board’s holding that claims
 37 and 43 of the ’359 patent have not been shown to be un-
 patentable and vacate and remand the Board’s holding
 that claims 25–26 and 28–29 of the ’592 patent have not
 been shown to be unpatentable. For the cross-appeal, we
 affirm the Board’s determination that claims 1–5, 14–18,
 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent are un-
 patentable.
                               I
                               A
      Proxicom owns the ’359 and ’592 patents, which share
 substantially similar specifications. They are directed to fa-
 cilitating “the exchange of information and transactions be-
 tween two entities associated with two wireless devices
 when the devices are in close proximity to each other” uti-
 lizing both short-range and a long-range wireless capabili-
 ties. ’359 patent at 2:59–62; ’592 patent at 2:61–64. The
 invention can be used when, for instance, two individuals
 in proximity wish to exchange information or a payment,
 such as for goods or services received at a flea market. De-
 vice-to-device communications can confirm that two de-
 vices are in proximity, and the server located remotely can
 facilitate the exchange of information or carry out the fi-
 nancial transaction. The below figure illustrates an appli-
 cation of the patented technology.
Case: 22-1282    Document: 41      Page: 3    Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC               3

 ’359 patent at Figure 2.
     In this figure, the first wireless device (mobile device)
 detects that it is in proximity to the second wireless device
 (broadcast device) via a short-range communication, such
 as Bluetooth, and then communicates with the central
 server via long-range wireless connection, such as the cel-
 lular network. Once the second wireless device is detected,
 the first wireless device receives a unique identifier from
 the second wireless device via a short-range communica-
 tions protocol. The first wireless device then sends the
 unique identifier to a central server. The server determines
 what information regarding the second wireless device is
 available and transmits a description of the information to
 the user’s device. The user then has the option to download
 the information.
     The method illustrated in the above figure is claimed
 in independent claim 1 of the ’359 patent, which is repre-
 sentative of the challenged claims. The disputed portion of
 the claim is highlighted below.
Case: 22-1282      Document: 41    Page: 4    Filed: 09/20/2023

 4              TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

     Claim 1: A method for a central server to exchange in-
     formation between one or more wireless devices com-
     prising the steps of:
     the central server receiving second device identifier in-
         formation from a first wireless device, the second
         device identifier information having been collected
         by the first wireless device from a second device
         and wherein said second device provides the second
         device identifier information to the first wireless
         device using short range communication without
         the use of wires from the second device to the first
         wireless device;
     said central server using the second device identifier
         information to determine one or more of an identity
         or related information concerning an entity or object
         located in proximity to the second device; and
     subsequent to the step of the central server receiving
        the second device identifier information from the
        first wireless device, the central server taking fur-
        ther action to deliver information or a service to the
        first wireless device based at least in part upon (a)
        the second device identifier and (b) at least one of
        the following:
         ...
         (iii) a current step in a multiple step process for an
               ongoing electronic commerce transaction.
 ’359 patent at 23:35–63 (emphasis added).
      Claims 37 and 43 depend from claim 1 and require that
 “a list of goods” is transmitted to the first wireless device
 as part of an electronic commerce transaction. Claims 37
 and 43 read,
     Claim 37: The method of claim 1 wherein the further
     action taken by the central server comprises:
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41      Page: 5     Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC                 5

     delivering a list of goods to the first wireless device as
         a step in a process for an electronic commerce
         transaction.
 ’359 patent at 27:56–59.
     Claim 43: The method of claim 1 wherein the infor-
     mation delivered to the first wireless device comprises:
     a list of goods or services available for selection from an
          entity associated with the second device identifier
          information as part of a step in an electronic com-
          merce transaction.
 ’359 patent at 28:15–20.
     Of the disputed claims in the ’592 patent, claims 19 and
 25 are independent and recite many of the same or similar
 limitations. Claim 25 reads,
     Claim 25: A method for a server to exchange infor-
     mation between a first wireless device and a second
     wireless device, comprising the steps of:
     ...
     said server using the identifier information to deter-
         mine a name of an entity or object located in prox-
         imity to the second wireless device; . . . .
 ’592 patent at 25:35–54 (emphasis added).
                               B
      Perttila 1 discloses a system for a server to provide an
 electronic coupon to a user’s mobile device in response to
 the user’s device interacting with a merchant-media ar-
 rangement. The merchant-media arrangement can be a
 billboard or a poster located in a store. When the user’s

     1  U.S.   Patent       Application       Publication   No.
 2004/0243519.
Case: 22-1282      Document: 41    Page: 6     Filed: 09/20/2023

 6              TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

 mobile device is within the proximity of merchant-media
 arrangement, the arrangement transmits to the user’s mo-
 bile device a merchant ID code via radio frequency identi-
 fication (RFID) or Bluetooth. The mobile device then
 transmits a merchant-information-request signal to the
 server through a mobile network. The server extracts the
 mobile device ID and the merchant ID code from the re-
 quest, and then generates an electronic coupon based on
 the merchant ID code and provides the user with an option
 to download the coupon.
                               C
      Target filed two inter partes review petitions challeng-
 ing the claims of the ’359 patent and the ’592 patent. In the
 first petition, Target challenged claims 1–5, 14–18, 27, 31,
 36, 37, 42, 43, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent. In the
 second petition, Target challenged claims 19–23, 25, 26, 28,
 and 29 of the ’592 patent. The IPR proceedings raised many
 of the same issues, and the Board issued similar final deci-
 sions in both IPRs.
      For the ’359 patent, the Board found claims 1–5, 14–
 18, 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 unpatentable as obvi-
 ous and/or anticipated over Perttila, but found claims 37
 and 43 not unpatentable. For the ’592 patent, the Board
 found claims 19–23 of the ’592 patent unpatentable as ob-
 vious over Perttila in view of Insolia, 2 but found claims 25,
 26, 28, and 29 not unpatentable over Perttila in view of Da-
 vis. 3
     Target appeals the Board’s patentability conclusions
 for claims 37 and 43 of the ’359 patent and claims 25, 26,
 28, and 29 of the ’592 patent. Proxicom cross-appeals the
 Board’s unpatentability conclusion for claims 1–5, 14–18,

     2  U.S. Patent No. 8,121,917.
     3  U.S.   Patent    Application         Publication   No.
 2010/0030638.
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41      Page: 7   Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC                7

 27, 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent and
 claims 19–23 of the ’592 patent.
                               II
     We set aside the Board’s actions if they are “arbitrary,
 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
 cordance with law,” or “unsupported by substantial evi-
 dence.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). We review the Board’s legal
 decisions de novo and its factual determinations for sub-
 stantial evidence. Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, 882 F.3d
 1132, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Substantial evidence “means
 such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
 as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v.
 N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 217 (1938).
      Claim construction and obviousness are both questions
 of law that depend on underlying findings of fact, which are
 reviewed for substantial evidence. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.
 v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318, 325–28 (2015); In re Brandt,
 886 F.3d 1171, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “Anticipation is a
 question of fact, and a finding of anticipation requires that
 every limitation of the claim is present in a single prior art
 reference.” Ericsson Inc. v. Intell. Ventures I LLC, 890 F.3d
 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
                              III
      On appeal, Target makes two primary arguments:
 (1) the Board erred by interpreting claims 37 and 43 of the
 ’359 patent to require an unrecited “interaction” with the
 claimed “list of goods,” and (2) the Board legally erred in
 concluding that claim 25 of ’592 patent and dependent
 claims 26, 28, and 29 are unpatentable over Perttila in view
 of Davis, because as the Board itself acknowledged, the
 prior art disclosed all of the claim limitations at least some
 of the time. We agree with Target on both points. Thus, we
 reverse and hold that claims 37 and 43 are unpatentable
 over Perttila, vacate the Board’s decision on claim 25 and
 dependent claims 26, 28, and 29, and remand for the Board
Case: 22-1282      Document: 41    Page: 8    Filed: 09/20/2023

 8              TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

 to consider the subsequent limitations of the claims that
 were not addressed in its final written decision.
                               A
     Claims 37 and 43 both require that “a list of goods” is
 transmitted to the first wireless device as part of an elec-
 tronic commerce transaction. Target argued to the Board
 that Perttila’s disclosure of delivering a “restaurant menu”
 satisfies the recitation of “a list of goods” in these claims.
 Perttila reads in relevant part, “[i]n another application,
 the billboard may be promoting a food product, and the re-
 quest to the remote server corresponds to a request for re-
 ceiving electronic coupon information including, for
 example, a restaurant menu or a recipe involving that par-
 ticular food or food type.” J.A. 1006 (¶ 26) (emphasis
 added). The Board rejected the argument because in the
 Board’s view, Target failed to explain how Perttila dis-
 closes the user interacting with the menu after it has been
 delivered.
      On appeal, Target argues that the Board erred by find-
 ing that the “list of goods” in claims 37 and 43 must be “in-
 teract[ed]” with as part of the e-commerce transaction. We
 agree, because the Board did not do so in claim 1 although
 they share the same limitations. Claim 1 recites, “the cen-
 tral server taking further action to deliver information or a
 service to the first wireless device based at least in part
 upon . . . a current step in a multiple step process for an
 ongoing electronic commerce transaction.” ’359 patent at
 23:50–63 (emphasis added). The Board concluded that in
 the context of claim 1, “Perttila explains that the electronic
 coupon is part of an electronic commerce transaction.” J.A.
 25. Notably, the Board did not find claim 1 to require the
 user to interact with that electronic coupon. And neither
 claim 37 nor 43 requires that the “list of goods” be inter-
 acted with as part of an e-commerce transaction. See in re
 Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“It was incorrect
 for the Board to read unwritten limitations into claims.”).
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41      Page: 9     Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC                  9

     Proxicom did not argue to the Board that any of these
 claims require the user “interacting” with the claimed list
 of goods, and it does not do so here. Red Br. 48 (stating that
 by “interaction,” the Board merely meant “to explain what
 might rise to the level of meeting the claim—i.e., disclosure
 of a restaurant menu and an ensuing interaction in a mul-
 tistep process.”). Instead, Proxicom argues that Proxicom’s
 “restaurant menu” did not involve a multi-step electronic
 commerce transaction. But Proxicom does not explain why
 we should reject the Board’s conclusion as to claim 1 nor
 does Proxicom explain why we should apply more stringent
 interpretations to claims 37 and 43 than the interpretation
 applied to claim 1.
       Once we find that claims 37 and 43 do not require the
 user to “interact” with the “list of goods,” Perttila’s “restau-
 rant menu” discloses the claim limitation—a “list of goods
 . . . as a step in a process for an electronic commerce trans-
 action.” The Board found that Perttila’s electronic coupon
 is part of an electronic commerce transaction in its analysis
 of claim 1, and the restaurant menu, a list of food items,
 delivered in the form of an electronic coupon, qualifies as a
 “list of goods.”
     We find that the Board erred by interpreting claims 37
 and 43 of the ’359 patent to require an unrecited “interac-
 tion” with the claimed “list of goods.” Under the proper in-
 terpretation, Perttila discloses all limitations of claims 27
 and 43. Thus, we reverse and hold that claims 37 and 43
 are unpatentable over Perttila. See Smith & Nephew, Inc.
 v. Rea, 721 F.3d 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that
 reversal is appropriate where “the facts are largely undis-
 puted, and the Board’s decision . . . was mainly the result
 of the analytical errors”).
                                B
     Target next argues that with respect to claim 25, the
 Board applied the wrong legal standard, causing the Board
 to improperly reject prior art disclosures that meet the
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41     Page: 10     Filed: 09/20/2023

 10             TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

 relevant claim limitations some of the time, but not all of
 the time. Claim 25 requires the server “to determine a
 name of an entity or object located in proximity to the sec-
 ond wireless device.” Target argued to the Board that when
 Perttila’s billboard is located “in the store itself” where the
 coupons are to be redeemed, this limitation is met. J.A.
 1426 (¶ 39) (Perttila discloses that for certain types of elec-
 tronic coupons, such as “product offerings with price dis-
 counts,” the coupons are “provided to mobile users through
 tag or beacons located at the store itself.”). Target ex-
 plained that in this embodiment, the server receives a mer-
 chant ID corresponding to the billboard; then sends a
 coupon that contains a name of the store or products lo-
 cated in proximity to the billboard.
     The Board found that Target’s assertions regarding
 product offerings within the store “rely on speculation,”
 and hence were insufficient to conclude that Perttila dis-
 closes all limitations of claim 25. J.A. 85. The Board ex-
 plained that “while it may be likely that the advertised
 products are in the store, this is not necessarily the case.
 For example, the products may be out of stock, in which
 case [Target] acknowledges that the claim language is not
 satisfied” during those times. J.A. 72. Based on this ra-
 tionale—that the claim limitation is met based on chance
 and speculation alone—the Board concluded that claim 25
 and its dependent claims had not been shown to be obvious
 over Perttila in view of Davis. J.A. 84–87. The Board did
 not analyze the subsequent limitations of claim 25 or its
 dependent claims.
     On appeal, Target argues that because there is no dis-
 pute that the recitation is met by Perttila at least some of
 the time, Perttila teaches that aspect of the claims. Blue
 Br. 30. Target mainly relies on our precedent Unwired
 Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., where we held that “combina-
 tions of prior art that sometimes meet the claim elements
 are sufficient to show obviousness.” 841 F.3d 995, 1002
 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis added). In Unwired Planet, the
Case: 22-1282    Document: 41      Page: 11    Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC               11

 claim at issue recited “farther-over-nearer ordering,” which
 prioritizes preferred providers that are farther away over
 providers that are nearer in distance. Id. at 998. The prior
 art taught a prioritization scheme based on an alphabetical
 ordering, which will “often result in locations that are far-
 ther away being given a higher priority than locations that
 are nearer.” Id. at 1002. We held that the prior art taught
 the recited claim because “[i]t is enough that the combina-
 tion would sometimes perform all the method steps.” Id.
     Similarly here, the Board acknowledged that Perttila’s
 disclosure met the determining recitation at least some of
 the times (i.e., when products are in stock). Specifically, it
 found that Perttila’s server sometimes provided e-coupons
 for products that are in the same store as the billboard. In
 such instances, the Board does not dispute that the coupon
 would identify the name of the store or products in that
 store located in proximity to the billboard, satisfying all of
 claim 25’s determining recitation. Because there is no dis-
 pute that Perttila would perform claim 25’s determining
 recitation at least some of the time, we hold that Perttila
 teaches that aspect of the claims. See Hewlett-Packard Co.
 v. Mustek Sys. Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
 (quoting Bell Commc'ns Rsch, Inc. v. Vitalink Commc'ns
 Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–623 (Fed. Cir. 1995)) (“Just as an
 ‘accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies
 a claimed method nonetheless infringes,’ a prior art prod-
 uct that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed
 method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.”).
    Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s decision on claim 25
 and its dependent claims 26, 28, and 29 and remand for the
 Board to consider the subsequent limitations of the claims.
                              IV
     Finally, we consider Proxicom’s cross-appeal. Proxi-
 com’s primary argument is that the Board committed legal
 error by implicitly adopting and applying a claim construc-
 tion that permits the “entity” or “object” to be intangible
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41     Page: 12     Filed: 09/20/2023

 12             TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

 and without physical presence. 4 Claims 1 and 14 of the ’359
 patent and claim 19 of the ’592 patent require the central
 server to determine or store “one or more of an identity or
 related information concerning an entity or object located
 in proximity to the second device.” ’359 patent at 23:45–49;
 25:35–38; ’592 patent at 24:63–65. The Board found that a
 construction of “object or entity” is immaterial to the out-
 come of this case. The Board then mapped the recited sec-
 ond device to the short-range transmitter (RFID tag) and
 the recited object to the billboard and the content promoted
 by billboard.
      Proxicom argues that “content promoted by the bill-
 board” is not an object or entity with physical presence, but
 for the object to be located in proximity to another object,
 the claimed object must be physically present. We fail to
 see, and Proxicom does not explain, why a coupon that cor-
 responds to “content promoted by the billboard” does not
 also correspond to the billboard itself. Moreover, the speci-
 fication of the ’359 and ’592 patents recognize that the ob-
 ject may be intangible. It states, “the ‘object’ is intended to
 include a physical thing, such as a product that is being

      4  Target argues that Proxicom is collaterally es-
 topped from raising these challenges. Appellant’s Response
 and Reply Br. 2–3. In a separate IPR proceeding, IPR2020-
 00932, the Board determined that claims 9, 22, and 51 of
 the ’359 patent are unpatentable as anticipated and obvi-
 ous over Perttila. Target Corp. v. Proxicom Wireless, LLC,
 No. 2020-00932, 2021 WL 5203113, at *16 (P.T.A.B. Nov.
 8, 2021). Proxicom raises the same issues in its cross-ap-
 peal that it lost on in that IPR. Because Proxicom did not
 appeal the Board’s decision in that proceeding, Target ar-
 gues that Proxicom is bound by the Board’s findings and
 holdings on this appeal. While Target appears to be correct,
 we need not decide this issue given our conclusions on the
 merits.
Case: 22-1282    Document: 41     Page: 13    Filed: 09/20/2023

 TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC              13

 offered for sale and may include a tangible article or intan-
 gible such as an electronic music or video file or photo-
 graph.” ’359 patent at 8:30–33; ’592 patent at 8:32–35
 (emphasis added). Thus, the Board did not legally err by
 mapping the recited object to include the content promoted
 by billboard.
     Proxicom next argues that Target shifted its mappings
 from its petition to reply, and the Board’s adoption of Tar-
 get’s new mapping deprived Proxicom of due process. Ac-
 cording to Proxicom, Target identified the “merchant
 media arrangement” as the second device in its petition,
 but later switched its position by arguing that the RFID
 tag is the second device. We disagree. The Board, in its in-
 stitution decision, explicitly acknowledged that Perttila’s
 merchant-media arrangement includes both a billboard
 and a short-range communicator such as an “RFID tag” or
 “Bluetooth link.” J.A. 535–36 (“Perttila discloses that the
 merchant-media arrangement includes a poster or bill-
 board. An RFID tag 38 is co-located at the merchant-media
 arrangement”) (internal citation and quotation omitted)
 (emphasis added).
     Moreover, “[t]he critical question for compliance with
 the APA and due process is whether [Patent Owner] re-
 ceived ‘adequate notice of the issues that would be consid-
 ered, and ultimately resolved, at that hearing.’” Genzyme
 Therapeutics Prods. LP v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d
 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Pub. Serv. Comm’n of
 Ky. v. FERC, 397 F.3d 1004, 1012 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Proxi-
 com does not dispute that it had notice and opportunity to
 address the allegedly “new” mapping. Red Br. 59 (stating
 that these issues were raised at oral argument). Proxicom
 indeed addressed Target’s “new” mapping in its sur-replies.
 See J.A. 698–706; J.A. 2735–43. Because Target’s mapping
 was consistent with the Board’s institution decision, and
 Proxicom had notice and opportunity to respond to Target’s
 mapping, the Board did not deprive Proxicom of due pro-
 cess.
Case: 22-1282     Document: 41    Page: 14   Filed: 09/20/2023

 14             TARGET CORPORATION v. PROXICOM WIRELESS, LLC

     We have considered Proxicom’s remaining arguments
 and find them unpersuasive. For the reasons above, we af-
 firm the Board’s determination that claims 1–5, 14–18, 27,
 31, 36, 42, 48, 49, and 52–55 of the ’359 patent and claims
 19–23 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable.
      AFFIRMED-IN-PART, REVERSED-IN-PART,
        VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
                            COSTS
 Costs to appellant.