July 12, 2020

Volume X, Number 194

July 10, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 09, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Institution of Inter Partes Review Denied for Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation (IPR2016-00450)

Takeaway: While the terms of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, any proposed interpretation must still be reasonable.

In its Decision, the Board declined to institute inter partes review of any challenged claims (1-10, 13, and 17-22) of the ’920 Patent.  The ’920 Patent relates generally to a process for verifying the identity of an online registrant.

The Board began with claim construction, noting that the terms of an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. The Board reviewed the construction of the term “notification event.”  Petitioner argued that “notification event” should be “an event that results in the registrant being contacted either for re-verification or for notification that the event occurred.”  Patent Owner argued that this interpretation read “notification” out of the term, and proposed the construction “an event that results in the registrant being notified that the event occurred.”  The Board agreed with Patent Owner, noting that the construction must be reasonable and under Petitioner’s construction, the word “notification” would be superfluous.  Regarding Petitioner’s expert’s testimony on the subject, the Board found that the expert cited to portions of the specification discussing events, not notification events.

The Board then reviewed the priority date for the ’920 Patent, the application for which was filed as a continuation-in-part application. Because the Board denied institution otherwise, it did not reach the issue of whether the claims of the ’920 Patent are entitled to the earlier priority date.

Finally, the Board reviewed the grounds – obviousness of the challenged claims over Bennett, or over Bennett and Thoursie. The Board found that Petitioner had not argued that Bennett teaches a “notification event,” or “notifying the user that the notification event occurred.”  Instead, Petitioner used its construction of “notification event” in showing obviousness.  Because the Board adopted Patent Owner’s construction, the Board found that Petitioner had not met its burden of establishing a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in its challenges to the challenged claims.

Twilio Inc. v. TeleSign Corporation, IPR2016-00450
Paper 17: Decision on Denial of Institution of Inter Partes Review
Dated: July 8, 2016
Patent 8,462,920
Before: Sally C. Medley, Justin T. Arbes, and Kimberly McGraw
Written by: McGraw
Related Proceedings: IPR2016-00360; IPR2016-00451; TeleSign Corp. v. Twilio Inc., No. 2:15-cv-03240 (C.D. Cal.)

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 196


About this Author

The Intellectual Property Litigation Practice at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP recognizes that a successful IP enforcement strategy can make an important contribution to a company's bottom line. Our attorneys help a wide variety of clients protect what is theirs and police the marketplace against infringements and unfair competitive practices.

Our attorneys have litigated infringement suits across a broad range of industries and technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, dental methods, computer software, automobile designs,...