Court Opinion

ID: 9890791
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 15:01:16.212028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:23.675736
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-1435   Document: 72     Page: 1    Filed: 10/16/2023

        NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

            MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
                   Appellant

                            v.

           STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
                   Appellee

  KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF
  COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
    AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
      PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
                  Intervenor
            ______________________

                  2022-1435, 2022-1771
                 ______________________

     Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
 Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2020-
 00985, IPR2020-01492, IPR2021-00355, IPR2021-00702.
                  ______________________

                Decided: October 16, 2023
                 ______________________

    KAYVAN B. NOROOZI, Noroozi PC, Los Angeles, CA, ar-
 gued for appellant.

    TYLER R. BOWEN, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ,
Case: 22-1435     Document: 72     Page: 2    Filed: 10/16/2023

 2      MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.

 argued for appellee.   Also represented by CHAD S.
 CAMPBELL; DAN L. BAGATELL, Hanover, NH; PHILIP ALCIDE
 MORIN, San Diego, CA; THERESA H. NGUYEN, Seattle, WA;
 JONATHAN IRVIN TIETZ, Washington, DC.

    PETER JOHN SAWERT, Office of the Solicitor, United
 States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, ar-
 gued for intervenor. Also represented by BENJAMIN T.
 HICKMAN, THOMAS W. KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN
 RASHEED.
                 ______________________

      Before DYK, TARANTO, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 DYK, Circuit Judge.
      Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”) appeals IPR de-
 cisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) find-
 ing claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134 unpatentable.
 We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
     The ’134 patent is titled “Memory Device with Fixed
 Length Non Interruptible Burst” and is directed to
 “memory devices generally and, more particularly, to a
 memory device that transfers a fixed number of words of
 data with each access.” ’134 patent, col. 1, ll. 1–8. “Access-
 ing multiple locations in response to a single address is
 called a burst mode access.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 14–15. Accord-
 ing to the patent, these “bursts” of data were difficult to
 achieve in conventional Dynamic Random Access Memory
 (“DRAM”) “because of the need to refresh” data within the
 memory cell “once every few milliseconds” meaning bursts
 would be interrupted. Id. at col. 1, ll. 22–27. The ’134 pa-
 tent claims to resolve this issue by teaching non-interrupti-
 ble bursts of a predetermined length.
    STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STMicro”) challenged claims
 1–21 of the ’134 patent as obvious over a combination of
Case: 22-1435    Document: 72     Page: 3    Filed: 10/16/2023

 MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC v. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.        3

 U.S. Patent No. 6,115,280 (“Wada”) and U.S. Patent No.
 5,584,033 (“Barrett”) in IPR2020-00985. Qualcomm Inc.
 (“Qualcomm”) challenged claims 1–7 and 9–21 of the ’134
 patent as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,600,605
 (“Schaefer”) and obvious over Schaefer and other refer-
 ences in IPR2020-01492. The Board found claims 1–21 of
 the ’134 patent were obvious over the combination of Wada
 and Barrett. Additionally, the Board found claims 1–5, 7,
 9, 10, 12–18, 20, and 21 of the ’134 patent were anticipated
 by Schaefer and claims 1–7 and 9–21 were obvious over
 Schaefer and other references. Monterey appeals. Qual-
 comm withdrew from the Schaefer appeal (Appeal No. 22-
 1771), and the Patent and Trademark Office intervened to
 defend the Board’s decision.
                        DISCUSSION
     “Obviousness is a mixed question of fact and law.” No-
 vartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1327
 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Board’s legal conclusion of obvious-
 ness is subject to de novo review, while “factual findings
 are reviewed for substantial evidence.”        Okajima v.
 Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Substan-
 tial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
 mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
 Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938).
     We affirm that the ’134 patent was obvious over the
 combination of Wada and Barrett and conclude that the
 Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
 Because we affirm the Board’s obviousness determination
 based on Wada and Barrett, we decline to reach the issue
 of anticipation or obviousness over Schaefer or the question
 of whether STMicro is a proper party to the Schaefer ap-
 peal.
                        AFFIRMED