- Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00981 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the Petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4. The above-captioned cases presents the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00964. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-00981, IPR2025-00982, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002. 00561. See, e.g., IPR2025-00487, Paper 9; IPR2025-00561, Paper 9. Accordingly, that analysis is incorporated here.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,784,058 - Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00966 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions, so no inter partes review was instituted.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aDenied
“of all relevant considerations, discretionary denial of institution is appropriate in these proceedings. This determination is based on the totality of the evidence and arguments the parties have presented.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4. The above-captioned cases presents the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025-” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,784,058 - Oracle Corporation v. Virtamove, Corp.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 26, 2025 · IPR2025-00964 · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the Petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial.
RulingsDirector review decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“The determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingNot reached
“Petitioner requests joinder of the above-captioned cases to other proceedings previously subject to discretionary denial of institution. For example, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00964, IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00981, and IPR2025-00982 to proceedings denied institution in Google, LLC v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00487, Paper 11 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00964, Paper 4. Similarly, Petitioner requests joinder of IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002 to proceedings denied institution in Amazon.com, Inc. v. Virtamove, Corp., IPR2025-00561, Paper 9 (Director July 11, 2025). See IPR2025-00966, Paper 4. The above-captioned cases presents the same discretionary considerations at those presented in IPR2025-00487 and IPR2025- 1 Citations are to papers in IPR2025-00964. The parties filed similar papers in IPR2025-00965, IPR2025-00966, IPR2025-00981, IPR2025-00982, IPR2025-01001, and IPR2025-01002. 00561. See, e.g., IPR2025-00487, Paper 9; IPR2025-00561, Paper 9. Accordingly, that analysis is incorporated here.” slip op. at 2
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,519,814 - Skullcandy, Inc. v. Earin ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00690 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Director review
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 20 and 21 were unpatentable on any asserted obviousness ground.
RulingsDirector review decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless the Director determines . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Having considered the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that, for the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. We thus decline to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. See SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1354, 1359–60 (2018).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey–Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed.Cir.1986)).” slip op. at 7
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18
- Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner
“Analysis of the Parties’ Contentions We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition is conclusory––the Cooperstock Declaration merely reiterates the position set forth in the Petition and does not provide sufficient detail or explanation of why Olodort’s “low power state” would have been understood by a POSITA to mean that “existing connections to a second wireless earbud and to a wireless audio streaming host device will be disconnected,” as recited in claim 20. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); see Pet. 23–24; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 84–87. We further agree that claim 38 is not directed to entering “a standby mode” as it recites “the low power state is a standby mode from which the second earpiece is awakened in response to detecting that the second earpiece has been attached to an ear.” Ex. 1002, claim 38 (emphasis added). As such, we agree with Patent Owner that Olodort’s “claim 38 contains no disclosure concerning what happens to ‘existing connections’ when exiting, let alone entering, the ‘standby mode.’” See Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1002, claims 32, 34, 38). We further agree with Patent Owner that the Cooperstock Declaration in paragraphs 86 and 87 sets forth an alternative obviousness theory “based on a modification to Olodort to add ‘circuitry for disconnecting the earbuds from one another and from any wireless audio streaming host device when in the low power state’” that is improperly incorporated by reference into the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 10–11 (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for challenged to each claim.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) (“The petition must specify where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon.”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another.”)). As such, we need not and do not consider this alternative obviousness theory.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,402,120 - Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00005 · APJ John G New · IPR · Rehearing
Denied Solus’s rehearing request; the Board maintained its denial of institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“of the decision de novo, but instead review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined “if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Arnold” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“[O]f the 44 specimens tested by Ye, as revealed in Ye’s Table II, only a single specimen, specimen 15, meets the required TC ratios recited in challenged claim 1 of the ’541 patent. Furthermore, none of the references cited by Petitioner teach, or even remotely suggest, the four requisite TC ratios recited by challenged claim 1. We find Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to exclusively select Ye’s sample 15, out of the remaining 43, to which to apply the teachings of Hara and Otsuka concerning the requisite tensile strength and weight deviation ranges in the hope of arriving at the claimed invention, is implausible. Indeed, only the ’541 patent, among all of the evidence of record, that actually mentions the required texture coefficient ratios recited in challenged claim 1. Petitioner provides no convincing argument as to why a skilled artisan would have selected sample 15 for combination with Hara and Otsuka.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“At the heart of this flaw is Petitioner’s argument, and Dr. Josefowicz’s opinion, that it would have been conventional in the art at the time of filing to vary the electrolyte concentration, electrolysis plating parameters, temperature, and the use of organic and inorganic additives, in order to obtain a copper foil with tensile strength and elongation values falling within the claimed ranges as these ranges were well known, at least since 1974. Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. This statement is largely unsupported by evidence of record, with the sole exception of Table 2 of Lowenheim, which, as Patent Owner points out, provides tensile strengths well outside the claimed range. Petitioner provides insufficient guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known which parameters to vary, or how to vary them, to provide the foil of Hirose with a tensile strength or weight deviation within the claimed range. Dr. Josefowicz’s statement that this would result from routine optimization, and was “conventional” may or may not be true, but it is insufficiently supported by evidence of record to be persuasive.” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,457,541 - Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. v. SK Nexilis Co., Ltd.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Sep 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00005 · APJ John G New · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied rehearing and left in place its denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-4.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“In summary, we again conclude that Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited prior art references, in combination with Dr. Josefowicz’s relatively unsupported testimony concerning a skilled artisan’s ability to optimize various constituents and conditions, to arrive at the claimed invention. Petitioner has not pointed to any argument or unconsidered evidence of record that is sufficient to show that, in reaching its conclusion, the Board abused its discretion by basing its Decision on an erroneous interpretation of law, a factual finding not supported by substantial evidence, or an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. Arnold, 362 F.3d at 1340.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“teaches the tensile strengths of various types of copper-electroplated steel electrical cable wire of different properties, including high strength, hardness, low electrical resistivity, near zero strength, good leveling, and thermal stability, some of which fall within the claimed range of tensile strength of 30 to 40 kgf/mm2. Lowenheim, 196, Table II. However, none of these categories correspond to those copper foil properties recited in the claims, and Dr. Josefowicz’s testimony provides little guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known how to optimize the recited properties, and particularly so in combination with the teachings of Hirose and the other cited prior art references. Furthermore, as we noted in our Decision:” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“At the heart of this flaw is Petitioner’s argument, and Dr. Josefowicz’s opinion, that it would have been conventional in the art at the time of filing to vary the electrolyte concentration, electrolysis plating parameters, temperature, and the use of organic and inorganic additives, in order to obtain a copper foil with tensile strength and elongation values falling within the claimed ranges as these ranges were well known, at least since 1974. Ex. 1003 ¶ 63. This statement is largely unsupported by evidence of record, with the sole exception of Table 2 of Lowenheim, which, as Patent Owner points out, provides tensile strengths well outside the claimed range. Petitioner provides insufficient guidance as to how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known which parameters to vary, or how to vary them, to provide the foil of Hirose with a tensile strength or weight deviation within the claimed range. Dr. Josefowicz’s statement that this would result from routine optimization, and was “conventional” may or may not be true, but it is insufficiently supported by evidence of record to be persuasive. Id. (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).” slip op. at 6
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,457,541 - Belden Inc. / PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Commscope, Inc. Of North CarolinaInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00833 · APJ Coke Morgan Stewart · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), finding discretionary denial appropriate based on a holistic assessment that included settled expectations and the prosecution search.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations favor discretionary denial. In particular, the challenged patent has been in force for nine years creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. DD Req. 2. Patent Owner provides evidence that the invention was commercialized at least seven years ago and is still on the market. Id. at 3; Ex. 2001; Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also provides evidence of patent marking of the commercialized product. DD Req. 3–4; Ex. 2001, 2. Finally, Patent Owner provides evidence that Petitioner has been aware of the challenged patent since at least 2022, showing where Petitioner cited the challenged patent in an unrelated inter partes review and an information disclosure statement. DD Req. 4.” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Petitioner argues that the Examiner erred during prosecution by performing an incomplete search after being reversed on appeal. DD Opp. 22–23. In particular, Petitioner argues that the search was based on the Examiner’s prior claim construction and not the Board’s claim construction decided on appeal. Id. Thus, according to Petitioner, the Examiner should have performed “a targeted prior art search for bags made of a ‘flexible material’ consistent with the Board’s interpretation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003, 19–20). This argument is unconvincing as the evidence of record indicates that the Examiner did perform a search for flexible bags and Petitioner does not sufficiently address why this search was inadequate. Ex. 1003, 20. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petition is denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,266,697 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00868 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director granted Patent Owner’s discretionary-denial requests and denied the petitions under § 314(a), instituting no trial based on the holistic assessment of the record.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied settled expectationsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). In consideration of the foregoing, it is: ORDERED that Patent Owner’s requests for discretionary denial are granted; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions are denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,515,765 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. VB Assets, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Sep 12, 2025 · IPR2025-00867 · APJ Kalyan K Deshpande · IPR · Director review
The Director denied institution under § 314(a), citing settled expectations and prior adjudications of the challenged patents.
RulingsDirector review decision- Settled expectationsInstitution denied settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“Other considerations, however, weigh in favor of discretionary denial. In particular, each of the challenged patents has been in force for more than ten years, creating strong settled expectations for Patent Owner. Additionally, the patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867,” slip op. at 2
- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“and IPR2025-00869 have all been subject to previous adjudications. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866, IPR2025-00867, and IPR2025-00869 were involved in prior Board proceedings. In those proceedings, the Board denied institution of two petitions and entered a final written decision finding the challenged claims not unpatentable in the third proceeding. DD Req. 12; see also IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 11–12; IPR2025-00869, Paper 8, 12. The patents challenged in IPR2025-00866 and IPR2025-00867 were also subject to a prior district court proceeding, in which the patents were found not invalid. DD Req. 12; IPR2025-00867, Paper 8, 12. It is not an efficient use of Board resources to further consider petitions challenging patents that have already been subject to challenges before the Office or patents that already have had validity adjudicated either at the Board or in another tribunal. Although certain arguments are highlighted above, the determination to exercise discretion to deny institution is based on a holistic assessment of all of the evidence and arguments presented. Accordingly, the Petitions are denied under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 3
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,818,176 - Lifevac, LLC v. Dcstar Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00454 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–17 because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that Zhongnan qualifies as prior art under the § 102(b)(1)(B) exception.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). Petitioner ultimately bears the burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability of each challenged claim by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). This burden never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board may authorize inter partes review if we determine that the information presented in the Petition and Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner
“provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (patent, printed publication, public use, sale, or other means of public availability) is excepted as prior art if: (1) the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) the subject matter disclosed had been previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. MPEP § 2153.02 (9th ed. rev. 01.2024 Nov. 2024); see also Sanho, 108 F.4th at 1381. As to point (1), there is no dispute that Zhongnan was published one year or less before the effective filing date of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (43); Pet. 11, 20; Prelim. Resp. 9–10. Thus, we focus on point (2), which requires that IDEAR be previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, and that Zhongnan and IDEAR disclose the same subject matter.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“Our rules require that in determining whether to institute inter partes review, we “take into account a patent owner preliminary response where such a response is filed, including any testimonial evidence.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (emphasis added); Prelim. Sur-reply 3. As Patent Owner correctly notes, “the Board routinely weighs declaratory testimony at the institution[] stage and virtually always makes institution decisions without the benefit of cross-examination.” Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (emphasis omitted) (citing LG Elecs. Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc., IPR2018-00704, Paper 14 at 13–14 (PTAB 2018); Freebit AS v. Bose Corp., IPR2017-01308, Paper 8 at 28 (PTAB 2017)). For example, in LG Electronics and Freebit, the Board denied institution, finding that the patent owner had provided sufficient evidence to antedate the petitioners’ proffered prior art references. See LG Elecs., IPR2018-00704, Paper 14 at 7; Freebit, IPR2017-01308, Paper 8 at 25, 34.10” slip op. at 23
§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 11,478,575
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.