• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,726,504
• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,294,403
• Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,175,680
• Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,488,871
• Ascend Elements, Inc. v. Duesenfeld GmbHInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · PGR2025-00037 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · PGR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of PGR on claims 1–14 because Petitioner did not show that any challenged claim was more likely than not unpatentable.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C. §] 321 . . . demonstrates that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least one of claims 1–14 of the ’463 patent is unpatentable. Accordingly, we deny institution of a postgrant review of claims 1–14 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, material science, chemical engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 to 3 years of academic or industry experience in the recycling or processing of lithiumion batteries. Additional formal education focusing on processing of lithium batteries may substitute for practical experience and additional practical experience can substitute for less education.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner does not contest this definition of a person of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 11. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as, on the present record, it appears consistent with the ’463 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “distinct from “comminute[ion],” Petitioner offers only the testimony of its expert, Mr. Juzkow, who equates Tomioka’s “cutting” with “comminute[ion].” See Ex. 1003 ¶ 121. However, Mr. Juzkow provides insufficient reasoning to support his conclusion, particularly given the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence discussed above. In contrast, Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Dantam, provides extensive reasoning, supported by citations to other evidence, to support his conclusion that Tomioka’s “dismantling” is not the claimed “comminution.” Thus, we give more weight to Mr. Dantam’s testimony than Mr. Juzkow’s testimony. Weighing this evidence all together, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka’s teaches the claimed comminution under Petitioner’s first theory.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundTeaching away not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “obvious. Pet. 34–35. However, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has also failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka renders this limitation obvious. See Prelim. Resp. 28–31. To begin with, Petitioner’s contentions lack sufficient reasoning explaining why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Tomioka in the manner proposed. “[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Petitioner merely asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art could use the roller system in place of the dismantling disclosed for the embodiments in Figures 19 and 20. On this record, we find this bare contention insufficient. actual disclosure of Tomioka. The rollers in Tomioka are used to separate the “battery body” from the “resin package enclosing the battery body,” and Tomioka specifically discloses that this technique is designed to “avoid damaging the battery body.” Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 26, 29; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 72–73. Thus, there is a significant difference between what Tomioka teaches and what Petitioner proposes to use the roller system to do. In addition, as Patent Owner points out, Tomioka specifically discloses there are risks associated with mechanically crushing battery packs, such as “risk of sparking due to residual voltage if the battery units are damaged in the process.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 5. Although we do not agree with Patent Owner that this amounts to a “teaching away,” see In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), we do believe that this teaching suggests a trade off that should be weighed in determining whether to make the modification, see Medichem S.A. v. Rolabo S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, Petitioner has failed to account adequately, if at all, for this trade off. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that it is more likely than not that Tomioka accounts for the claimed “comminuting.”” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 12,119,463
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00701 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 were obvious over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’138 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14 of the ’138 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Petitioner states that “the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary to find the claims unpatentable.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner does not address claim construction. See generally Prelim. Resp. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “a Ph.D. or master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year or four years, respectively, of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 25–29). Petitioner contends that less work experience can be compensated for by a higher level of experience and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25). Petitioner also asserts that the proposed level of skill would be the same under any of the United States, Japanese, or PCT application dates. Id. at 8–9 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of qualifications for one of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 20. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, Petitioner relies upon Parkin, and its layers 115 and 175, as the claimed first and second ferromagnetic material layers, respectively. See Pet. 10, 16. Petitioner admits that these layers are 8 In the Petition, Petitioner refers to the lower electrode “ferromagnetic layer 110’ as discussed in Claim 1[a]” in the discussion of limitation 1[d]. Pet. 18. Petitioner’s reference to “layer 110’” appears to be in error because the Petition’s discussion for limitation 1[a] refers to layer 115 of Parkin, as does Dr. Bokor’s testimony related to limitations 1[a] and 1[d]. Pet. 10; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 109, 136. amorphous, but contends that, as Parkin discloses, these layers may be annealed. Id. at 17. Petitioner, however, refers to Parkin’s disclosure that only “a portion of the storage layer 175” is crystallized after annealing. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1062, 18:51–55) (emphasis added). Petitioner also relies upon Parkin’s “thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer” that is crystallized to teach limitation 1[d]. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1062, 18:55–59; Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 131–132) (emphasis added). Dr. Bokor additionally testifies that it is “Parkin’s ‘thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer’ of CoFeB” that meets the “entirely crystallized” requirement of limitation 1[d]. Ex. 1024 ¶ 132. Parkin, however, states that a thin crystalline ferromagnetic layer is formed, but “the bulk of storage layer 175 remains amorphous.” Ex. 1062, 18:55–60 (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to reconcile how its assertions that the first and second ferromagnetic layers, which are mapped to the totality of layers of 115 and 175, meet the limitation that the first and second ferromagnetic layers are each “entirely crystallized” when Petitioner relies only a thin layer, that is, a portion, of the 115 and 175 layers for the teaching that the respective layers are entirely crystallized. Put another way, Petitioner’s mapping is inconsistent: Petitioner relies upon the full depth of certain “layers” of Parkin for the teaching of the ferromagnetic layers, but then only relies upon thin portion of that depth for the assertion that the “layers” are entirely crystallized.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,367,138
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co. Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00585 · APJ Lilan Ren · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1–6, 10–19 because claim 1’s scope is ambiguous and the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Institution of an inter partes review requires that “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that the scope of claim 1 is ambiguous and that there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, and we deny inter partes review.1” slip op. at 2

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “distinguishes and contrasts build material property from operational parameters. The diagnostic test passage therefore only describes a diagnostic test of the build material property but does not describe a subsequent diagnostic test to assess whether an operational parameter is suitable for the printer. Based solely on the diagnostic test passage and the prosecution history, a possible interpretation may be that the operational parameter determination in claim element 1b encompasses the diagnostic testing in claim element 1c. That is, “performing a diagnostic test to determine whether the operational parameter is suitable for the three-dimensional printer” in claim element 1c is subsumed as part of “determining an operational parameter of a fabrication process using the three-dimensional printer based upon the data, the operational parameter including at least one of a build platform temperature, a build volume temperature, an infill requirement, a rafting requirement, a support structure requirement, and a cooling requirement” in claim element 1b.” slip op. at 15

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “benefit of the filing date of an earlier filed application only if the disclosure of the earlier application provides support for the claims of the later application, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.” PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Research Corps. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 871–72 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that claims of the later-filed application, which were not limited to a “blue noise mask,” were “not entitled to claim the benefit of their parent applications’ filing dates”); ICU Med., Inc. v. Alaris Med. Sys., 558 F.3d 1368, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that “spikeless” claims “added years later during prosecution” were not supported by the specification which “describe[d] only medical valves with spikes”); Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc., 156 F.3d 1154, 1158–60 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (holding the generic shaped cup claims of the later-filed child application were not entitled to the filing date of the parent application that “disclosed only a trapezoidal cup and nothing more”). “To satisfy the written description requirement the disclosure of the prior application must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, [the inventor] was in possession of the invention.” PowerOasis, 522 F.3d at 1306 (emphasis omitted; alteration in original). The sufficiency of written description support is based on “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in the field in the relevant time frame would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 20). Petitioner also contends that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. (citing the same). Patent Owner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 12. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears unopposed and consistent with the disclosures of the ’464 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  Claim construction§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,167,464
• Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Payrange LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00573 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 7 or 11 were unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’772 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 7 and 11 of the ’772 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) pertaining to the ’772 patent “would have had an educational background of, engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately three years of experience with electronic payment systems, vending machine technologies, or distributed network systems.” Pet. 19–20; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–26. “Lack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s formulation of ordinary skill. See Prelim. Resp. generally. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the ’772 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “In this inter partes review, we apply the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). In applying this standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). We do not need to construe any terms expressly to determine whether or not to institute a trial. See Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,481,772
• Røde Microphones, LLC / Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Zaxcom, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00557 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the “master timecode generator” produces a signal that “controls” another timecode generator. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing a dictionary definition of “master” as “[one] that has control over another or others,” Ex. 2019, 3). We see no basis, however, to limit the claim term to a particular type of control. Patent Owner points to Figure 6 of the ’444 patent where “the master timecode generator creates master timecodes that are used to control the speed of the local timecode generator to ensure the two timecode generators are synchronized.” See Prelim. Resp. 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 9‒16, Fig. 6). But Figure 6 merely depicts an exemplary “process for recording audio and for replaying and re-recording segments of missed audio in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 15‒17. Further, the Specification describes the exemplary embodiment of Figure 6 as a master unit providing master timecodes to a local audio device, which “synchronizes (e.g., jam syncs) its respective on board local timecode generator with the master timecodes,” but does not specify exactly how the master unit exercises control. Id. at col. 17, ll. 9‒17. Thus, we do not include any particular control mechanism (e.g., changing the speed of the local timecode generator) in our interpretation at this time. Based on the record presented, we interpret “master timecode generator” as “a producer of a master time reference signal that controls at least one other timecode generator” and “master timecode” as “a time reference signal used to synchronize at least one device.”” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Strub teaches or suggests limitation 1[A]. Petitioner relies on Strub’s disclosure of a “master” recording unit as the claimed “remote receiver.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39). The cited portion of Strub is reproduced below: Data other than recording data can also be exchanged between recording units. For example, it may be desirable to coordinate the recordings obtained by recording units so that frames of visual recording data obtained by different recording units are temporally synchronized (e.g., so that a frame begins at the same time for each recording unit). This can be done by transmitting a synchronization pulse from a “master” recording unit to each of the other recording units (“slave” recording units). (Synchronizing analog visual data acquisition devices in this way is referred to as “genlocking.”) Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39. As argued by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 36), the cited procedure involves synchronizing frames of visual recording data, not audio recording data. Petitioner has not disputed Patent Owner’s assertions that the described “genlocking” technique is a video synchronization technique that does not apply to or affect the synchronization of system clocks or audio timestamps and has no bearing on audio synchronization. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition or the Preliminary Reply how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied this teaching to audio data recorded by an audio device. Petitioner cites this visual recording data synchronization passage as a solution to a problem that Strub identifies in clocks not being adequately synchronized to enable use of time-stamps associated with recordings to be used to synchronize the recordings. See Prelim. Reply 1‒2 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒37, col. 79, l. 63‒col. 80, l. 2). However, immediately following the cited portion that identifies this problem, Strub further explains that “[i]f recording units according to the invention each include a GPS receiver, such mis-synchronization will only exist to an appreciable degree if one or more recording units are shielded from a GPS transmitter system for an extended period of time, e.g., several hours.” Ex. 1003, col. 80, ll. 2–27. Thus, Strub suggests that the solution to this problem is for the recording units to receive their timecodes not from a master recording unit, as argued by Petitioner, but from a GPS satellite.4 Petitioner does not address this teaching.” slip op. at 22

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not rely on Woo as teaching or suggesting limitation 1[A]; Petitioner relies solely on the teachings of Strub. See Pet. 33–35 (arguing that “Strub teaches this element”). Petitioner references Strub’s teachings as being “consistent with and reinforced by the Woo reference” in the Preliminary Reply (Prelim. Reply 2), but this is not sufficient to rely on Woo, alone or in combination with Strub, as teaching this limitation. We also agree that the Lectrosonics IPRs’ findings regarding Woo teaching the “master timecode generator” limitation recited in those challenged claims are inapplicable here, where claim 1 recites additional limitations not present in those challenged claims. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 26‒27 (claim 1 of the ’444 patent: “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data”) with Ex. 1028, col. 23, ll. 20‒21 (claim 1 of the ’814 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”) and Ex. 1030, col. 23, ll. 38‒39 (claim 1 of the ’902 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 12,051,444
• Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. / Pensando Systems, Inc. v. Xtreamedge, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00479 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were obvious over Erskine, Scherzer, or Scherzer and Gillett.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied

    “III. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we conclude that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim of the ’634 patent challenged in the Petition. Therefore, we do not institute an inter partes review. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that at the time of the ’634 patent (July 2018), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or a similar major with at least two years of experience in the field; or a master’s degree with specialization in the field,” where “[a] person with less education but more relevant practical experience may also meet this standard.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–13). Petitioner further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had knowledge of “[d]esigning and using systems that include endpoint devices (e.g., client devices) and servers for establishing network connections and data transfer,” “[r]ecognizing and applying the client-server architecture,” and “[u]sing and applying concepts from known telecommunication and networking frameworks, protocols and standards, including TCP/IP, IEEE 802.11, VoIP, cellular systems and other known frameworks and standards.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 14). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its Preliminary Response. Based on the record presented, including our review of the ’634 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’634 patent and cited prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s definition and apply it for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 4–29 (describing in the “Background” section of the ’634 patent a “network connection between two endpoints” and known methods of reaching “full effective bandwidth capacity” in a network).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “C. Claim Interpretation We interpret each challenged claim using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner notes that it proposed a construction for the claim term “geographical area” in the district court case, but states that it “do[es] not believe proposing a construction for the term is necessary in this proceeding because the relied upon teachings of the prior art references are consistent with examples of ‘geographical area’ included in the ’634 patent [S]pecification.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he Board need not engage in express claim construction at this stage of the proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 5. We conclude that no express interpretation of any claim term is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review in this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Erskine teaches or suggests the second requirement of limitation [1c], i.e., “initiating the next network connection . . . with a transmission bandwidth based on the parameter values for the past network connection.” Petitioner’s theory is that (1) the QoS parameters in Erskine are for a “past” connection from one zone to another, (2) the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is “based on” the QoS parameters, and (3) a new call only proceeds if the transmission bandwidth needed for the call added to the current bandwidth being used over the interzone link is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, so Erskine therefore teaches a call with a transmission bandwidth determined “based on” the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth (which in turn is determined “based on” the QoS parameters). See Pet. 27–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 59–60 (similar testimony from Dr. Crovella). As Patent Owner points out, however, Erskine only makes “a binary, accept/reject decision as to whether to allow a new call to proceed based on a comparison between the bandwidth needed for the call and a predetermined ‘sliding maximum interzone bandwidth value.’” See Prelim. Resp. 6–7. Specifically, the additional bandwidth that would be needed for the call is added to the current bandwidth being used on the interzone link; if the sum of those values is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth for the link, the call “proceeds”; otherwise, it is “blocked.” Ex. 1004, col. 4, ll. 36–40, col. 6, l. 55–col. 7, l. 10, col. 8, ll. 36–43, col. 9, ll. 9–26, col. 10, ll. 23–25 (the sum is compared to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth “to determine whether enough bandwidth is available to proceed with the new call”), Fig. 3 (steps 308, 310, and 312). Erskine repeatedly refers to the bandwidth for the new call as the amount of bandwidth that is “necessary” or “required” to handle the call. See, e.g., id. at col. 1, ll. 43–57 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”), col. 6, ll. 61–64 (“the additional bandwidth required (of the new call)”), col. 8, ll. 36–40 (“the bandwidth necessary for the new call”), col. 9, ll. 16–21 (“the anticipated additional bandwidth necessary for the new call”), 54–56 (“the bandwidth amount the new call will utilize (if connected)”), col. 10, ll. 21–23 (same), 41–43 (same), col. 12, ll. 1–2 (“an amount of bandwidth necessary to handle the new call”). It is that value—determined prior to the addition and comparison to the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth—that will be used for the new call if it is allowed to “proceed[].” Id. at col. 6, ll. 64–67 (if the sum is less than the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth, the call “proceeds” and “the QoS table is updated with the additional bandwidth used by that call”). Erskine does not describe the transmission bandwidth for the new call as being based on any parameter values for a past network connection, but rather as “whatever bandwidth the system determined is necessary for the additional call.” See Prelim. Resp. 8–9. In other words, the transmission bandwidth needed for a new call is predetermined and independent of whatever the sliding maximum interzone bandwidth is currently. See id.” slip op. at 15

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,944,634

Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.