- Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00173 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied for claims 1–13 because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 371 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’333 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of claims 1–13 of the ’333 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“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)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us that reflects the knowledge and experience of a POSITA. We adopt the parties’ agreed level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the description in the ’333 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“element” (limitation [1(e)]) onto a McGregor “device” placed in an RF field generated by Palmer’s reader/writer device. Pet. 28–31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105), 41–42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 125–127). The Petition is unclear as to which McGregor device is being referenced, e.g., the smart card of Figure 2, the wallet embodiment of Figure 4, or some combination of embodiments disclosed in McGregor and Palmer. Id. Regardless, the proposed modification of McGregor in view of Palmer, as we understand it, is based on conclusory reasoning and appears to be motivated by hindsight rather than the teachings of the applied references. Prelim. Resp. 38–40 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 97–102). 7 Ground 2 challenges independent claim 11 for asserted obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle. The Petition’s reliance on Tuttle for its teaching of distinct data transmitter, data receiver, and cue receiver ports does not alter our analysis for claim 11. Pet. 55–62. POSITA would have understood that a series of instructions would be programmed into McGregor’s microprocessor to function as a switching element (pursuant to Palmer’s teachings), and as described.in the ’333 Patent. See Claim [1(b)]; see ’333 Patent, 6:9-14. Accordingly, McGregor’s microprocessor is a switching element (1) that is placed into an activated state after receiving a handshake signal (an activation cue) that establishes a communication during the handshake process and (2) that remains in an inactivated state if no reader/writer device is detected (no activation cue). Ex. 1003 ¶ 127 (emphases added). Dr. Buehrer’s citation to the ’333 patent, without explaining his mapping of limitation [1(e)] onto McGregor-Palmer beyond a general reference to 10-plus pages of limitation [1(b)] “control device” analysis, suggests hindsight reasoning. Id; see also Pet. 42 (generally referring to limitation [1(b)]). The Petition’s analysis, moreover, does not address why or how McGregor’s microprocessor would “accordingly” act as a data conveyance switching element or why a POSITA would want to program McGregor’s microprocessor to execute such a switching function in view of Palmer. We find the Petition and Dr. Buehrer’s testimony lacking in articulated reasoning supported by rational underpinnings sufficient to support the conclusion that limitation [1(e)] reads on the proposed McGregor-Palmer combination. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The Petition does assert an obviousness theory within the analysis of the “control device” limitation [1(b)]. Pet. 25–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85– 109). The Petition asserts that a “POSITA would have been motivated to implement McGregor’s device pursuant to Palmer such that the security code would be automatically transmitted when the device detects the receive the security code.” Pet. 28; see also id. at 31 (“A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Palmer’s (1) RF field detection and handshake processes and (2) Palmer’s transceiver hardware in McGregor’s device.”) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–105). We find the Petition’s obviousness theory to be inherently inconsistent and non-specific with regard to the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1(e)].” slip op. at 16
§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,628,333 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00347 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–16 on all asserted grounds and granted joinder to IPR2024-00918, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024); Paper 8 (referral to panel after no discretionary denial briefing under the Interim Processes memorandum). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be authorized unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’564 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented. We also grant Petitioner’s Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition (1) is substantially identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same testimony from the same expert (Dr. Henry Houh, Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 5–9. Petitioner also represents that joinder will not impact the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR schedule. See, e.g., Mot. 6–7 (“joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are substantively identical, and Petitioner will accept an ‘understudy’ role. . . . Lastly, the briefing and discovery will be simplified by resolving all issues in a single proceeding”), 9–10 (“[b]ecause the Instant Petition is substantively identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass [p]etition, with the same grounds applied to the same claims as instituted by the Board, there are no new issues for Patent Owner to address,” and “[j]oinder of this proceeding with the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR would not unduly burden or negatively impact the trial schedule in any meaningful way”).” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 9,407,564 - PTAB · Jun 11, 2025 · IPR2025-00348 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–21 on all petition grounds and granted joinder to IPR2024-00919, subject to participation limits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“fuboTV/MasterClass IPR on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of unpatentability. See fuboTV/MasterClass IPR, Paper 14 (institution decision). Petitioner here challenges the same claims and asserts the same” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“As moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). A motion for joinder should (1) set forth the reasons joinder is appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial schedule for the existing review. See Kyocera Corp. v. SoftView, LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013). We determine that Petitioner has met its burden of showing that joinder is appropriate because, as set forth above, the Petition (1) is substantially identical to the fuboTV/MasterClass petition, (2) contains the same grounds based on the same evidence, and (3) relies on the same testimony from the same expert (Dr. Henry Houh, Ex. 1003). Mot. 1, 5–10. Petitioner also represents that joinder will not impact the fuboTV/MasterClass IPR schedule. See, e.g., Mot. 6–7 (“joinder will have minimal, if any, impact on the trial schedule, as all issues are substantively identical, and Petitioner will accept an “understudy” role. . . . Lastly, the” slip op. at 10
NonePatents in suitUS 8,868,772 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–22 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kircher and Krug.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s description is more restrictive than that of Petitioner because it requires the POSITA to have more experience or education in the relevant field. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this 6 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’271 Patent and the asserted prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. Although we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and our conclusions would be the same under either definition. To the extent the level of ordinary skill in the art is in dispute or makes a material difference in the obviousness analysis, the parties should brief their respective positions in this regard during trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Although the specification broadly defines “module,” the language of the claims better supports Patent Owner’s argument that the computer program module limitations connote structure in the form of software instructions or code. Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–24; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 15–28). Specifically, claim 1 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing computer program modules configured to execute on the computer processor, the computer program modules comprising. . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Ex. 1001, 47:30–32. And, claim 6 recites the computer-program product having a computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions encoded thereon comprising . . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Id. 48:19–51. That language suggests that the module limitations are software instructions or code because the modules are defined as “computer program modules” or “computer program instructions.” Id. at 47:32, 48:20– readable storage medium and are instructions to be executed by a processor, further suggesting the modules are software instructions or code. Id. at 47:30–32, 48:16–21. The testimony of Dr. Kahn, which we credit for institution purposes, supports that understanding; Dr. Kahn states a POSITA would understand that “‘computer program modules’ stored on a ‘computerreadable storage medium’ refers to software instructions or code.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Furthermore, the computer program module limitations are” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“That is, Petitioner asserts that the claim requires only one of “a local importance,” “a global importance,” “a content relevance,” or “one or more actions on the piece of electronic content.” Id. We adopt Petitioner’s construction, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. The claimed determination is “based at least in part on one or more measures derived from the group” members listed. As such, the claim language is clear that only one member of the group, i.e., one of limitations 1[g][i]–1[g][iv], is required to meet the claim. Independent claims 6 and 7 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and for purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s claim construction for those similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, 48:35–46, 49:1–11.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00821 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner waived entry of a Preliminary Response, did not enter a Patent Owner Response, and accordingly does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 23. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 165– 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 165–166. For purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“advance arguments directed to claim 23. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 23, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda. 5. Conclusion on Obviousness For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner relies solely on the testimony of Dr. Cooklev to support its proffered claim construction. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34). Dr. Cooklev testifies, “[b]ased on my review of the patent and intrinsic record, [“device-specific target location”] has a plain and ordinary meaning and is used by the claims with that meaning, which requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 34. Other than further opining that “I see no lexicography or disclaimer in the intrinsic record indicating that ‘device-specific target [location]’ refers to a location that is generally applicable to numerous devices, or that the term otherwise has a meaning broader than its plain and ordinary meaning,” Dr. Cooklev provides no support for why the claimed “device-specific target location” “requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” See id. We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“c) Analysis Patent Owner’s Response does not advance arguments directed to claims 1 and 15. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a patent owner forfeits an issue presented in its preliminary response if it fails to renew the issue in its response after trial is instituted). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 15 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,341,811 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,341,811 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00154 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Spain-I, Hunzinger, Nanda, and, for certain claims, additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the 9 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. 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)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 1. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 166. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally, PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary for institution, we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent. Apart from this, where neither party proposes any particular construction or indicates disagreement as to the meaning of any claim language, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 185 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 187. For claim 6, as discussed above, Petitioner argues that Spain-I teaches remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00153 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 17–20, and 24–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations; the Board did not reach the additional Damarla and Houri grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. 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 the Petition, Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 4. Patent Owner states in its Patent Owner Response that it “agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.” PO Resp. 5. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 1, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Pet. 5–41. We adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 186 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 188.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,170,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,170,583 - Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00082 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the district court had already held all challenged claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“recent Director Review decision (i.e. in the above-noted related cases, IPR2024-01252 and IPR2024-01253) reached the opposite conclusion to that of AviaGames in holding that a district court’s § 101 invalidity judgment precludes instituting challenges to the invalid claims even though an appeal of that judgment is pending. Specifically, in Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, -01253, Paper 27 (PTAB April 17, 2025) (Director Review decision) (“Hulu”), the Acting Director held that “[b]ecause the patent claims already stand invalid [due to the District Court’s § 101 invalidity judgment], it is unnecessary to institute another proceeding to review them for patentability under other grounds.” Hulu at 2, 3 (reasoning that “[i]n the event the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s decision, Petitioner may raise such invalidity arguments in the district court on remand”) (remanding the panel’s institution decisions and denying institution). Accordingly, under clear guidance from Hulu, because the District Court held all the ’403 patent claims invalid under § 101, we deny institution. See Hulu at 3 (holding that “where a district court already has found the challenged claims invalid, the efficiency and integrity of the patent system is best served by denying institution” (citing Fintiv at 16)).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,986,403 - Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · May 1, 2025 · IPR2025-00081 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the district court had already held those claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivInstitution denied
“IPR2024-01252 and IPR2024-01253) reached the opposite conclusion to that of AviaGames in holding that a district court’s § 101 invalidity judgment precludes instituting challenges to the invalid claims even though an appeal of that judgment is pending. Specifically, in Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, -01253, Paper 27 (PTAB April 17, 2025) (Director Review decision) (“Hulu”), the Acting Director held that “[b]ecause the patent claims already stand invalid [due to a district court’s § 101 invalidity judgment], it is unnecessary to institute another proceeding to review them for patentability under other grounds.” Hulu at 2, 3 (reasoning that “[i]n the event the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s decision, Petitioner may raise such invalidity arguments in the district court on remand”) (remanding the panel’s institution decisions and denying institution). Accordingly, under clear guidance from Hulu, because the District Court held all the ’403 patent claims invalid under § 101, we deny institution. See Hulu at 3 (holding that “where a district court already has found the challenged claims invalid, the efficiency and integrity of the patent system is best served by denying institution” (citing Fintiv at 16)).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,986,403
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.