• Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01436 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 9–11, 19, 21, and 22 based on both asserted obviousness grounds: Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche; and Maeda, Ahmed, and Deforche.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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, the Reply, the Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’002 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–3, 9–11, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’002 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art and does not propose an alternative level. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’002 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “term “pre-installed generic driver. Pet. 13; Prelim. Resp. 7–8. Those proposed constructions are consistent with the lexicographic definition provided in the ’002 patent. In a section titled “Definitions,” the ’002 patent states: The term “pre-installed generic driver” is intended to mean a driver which is installed on a processing device such as a computer as a standard driver, e.g. is installed with the installation of the operating system. Such a driver is standard for the operating system and can drive a standard class of peripheral devices coupled to or connected to the processing device. Ex. 1001, 14:32–38. We apply this lexicographic definition in our analysis below.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we determine Petitioner’s rationale to combine to be sufficient. We note that at this stage of the proceeding Petitioner’s rationale to combine is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth as to the knowledge of a POSITA. Patent Owner’s argument as to the knowledge of a POSTIA are unsupported. On this record, Petitioner sufficiently shows that Ahmed and Deforche teach that using separate audio and video drivers was “preferred” and “has the advantage that the need for a specific driver for the communication between the wireless modem device and the computer device can be avoided.” Pet. 26–28, 36–37 (citing Ex. 1014, 18:26–19:21; Ex. 1030 ¶ 9). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,762,002
• Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01438 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 16, and 18–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of success on Ground 1.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.”” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “communication between the processing device and a class of peripheral devices. Pet. 16–20 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 37–41, 50, 53–55, 58, 60–62, 73–74, 76, 88, 144, Figs. 1, 2, 7, 9, 13). Although Ono does not expressly discuss the use of pre-installed generic drivers that provide a generic communications protocol, Petitioner notes that Ono does teach that the information terminal apparatuses use drivers for wireless communication and that “Deforche discloses wirelessly transferring data and describes using the well-known Windows operating system having pre-installed generic drivers to run an application stored on a peripheral device.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 2, 53–55; Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 9, 30; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 116–17). As such, Petitioner contends that “[i]t would have been obvious to modify Ono’s similar device using the well-known method of using the pre-installed generic Window’s drivers, as disclosed by Deforche, to communicate information to Ono’s USB peripheral devices.” Id.; see also id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1030 ¶¶ 10, 28–30, 34–41, 52; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 120–24).” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a [Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering] or [Computer Science] and five years of work experience in a related field. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’676 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,258,676
• Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 8, 2025 · IPR2024-01439 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–11 and 13–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claim 1 over Uchida and Grimshaw.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 and the evidence of record, and in the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the ’951 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–11 and 13–21 of the ’951 patent on the grounds asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied

    “We do not agree that the references relied upon in the Petition are cumulative of the Banerjee and Epstein references previously considered by the Office. For example, during reexamination Patent Owner represented to the Office that neither Banerjee nor Epstein discloses or suggests “an actuator on the peripheral device, wherein said actuator is arranged in a way to enable the user to carry out a user action by actuating the actuator to trigger the processing device to transfer said user selected arbitrary media content to said wireless transmitter through said port to transmit said user selected arbitrary media content to the display node via the communications network” . . . . [T]he skilled person would have appreciated that Banerjee is directed to the plug-and-play device having code that is automatically executed when the plug-and-play device is connected to the remote computer and the remote computer sending a request to share the screen by the master computer, whereas Epstein is directed to a puck that sends an intention to the switching device or wirelessly through the laptop. Ex. 2001, 124–125 (emphasis added). Here, however, Petitioner relies primarily on the structures and operations disclosed by Ono, Ichieda, and Uchida to demonstrate it would have been known to include an actuator on a wireless peripheral device to trigger the transfer of a user selected arbitrary media content. See Pet. 31–33, 57–59, 77. Importantly, unlike Epstein or Banerjee, each of those references discloses display systems that include wireless peripheral devices that have actuators that are at least related to facilitating the transfer of image data from a personal computer to a projector for display. See id. As such, we find that Ono, Ichieda, and Uchida present information that is neither substantively similar nor cumulative of that disclosed or suggested by Banerjee and Epstein. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).” slip op. at 7

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a Master’s Degree in Electrical Engineering with . . . five years of work experience in computer science and embedded systems, or Master’s Degree in Computer Science with . . . five years of work experience in electrical and computer engineering and embedded systems. Additional educational experience could substitute for some of the work experience. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 36–37). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, as it is consistent with the ’951 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenInstituted

    “Patent Owner’s assertion fails to undermine Petitioner’s contention because it does not actually address Petitioner’s point, which is that a skilled artisan would recognize, when a user slides switch 140 back to the ‘OFF’ position to allow image transfer to resume, that action would trigger image data transmission of user selected arbitrary media content from wireless through the wireless communications network for display. Instead, Patent Owner’s argument only addresses when a user slides switch 140 to the “ON” position to stop image transmission. On this record, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence and analysis shows sufficiently that Uchida and Grimshaw disclose this last claim element of claim 1. 4. Conclusion After considering Petitioner’s evidence and argument, we determine the information presented shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 1 based on the combination of Uchida and Grimshaw (Ground 2). We also note that both parties rely on substantially the same evidence and arguments to address independent claims 9, 16, and 21. See Pet. 49–59 (claim 9), 64–66 (claim 16), 67 (claim 21); Prelim. Resp. 34–47 (claims 9, 16, 21). Therefore, our determination for claim 1 applies equally to claims 9, 16, and 21.” slip op. at 16

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,422,951
• Toast, Inc v. Gratuity, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2023-01408 · APJ Cynthia L Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–13 are unpatentable as obvious over Marshall, Marshall and Webb, Phillips and Marshall, or Phillips, Marshall, and Webb.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a POSITA, to the extent that it aligns with the level of skill portrayed by the ’050 Patent. As discussed above, the ’050 Patent does not does not provide one with any technical direction for making and using a multi-restaurant embodiment that avoids or solves calculation/extraction problems due to disparate client (e.g., restaurant) systems. The ’050 Patent also does not provide one with any technical direction for scaling up and/or transitioning to a cloud-based system. We infer from this that a POSITA would have the education and the experience enabling him/her to effectively and economically handle these tasks without technical direction, despite the problems associated therewith. Put another way, the actual application of these technical endeavors would not be beyond his/her skill. Although Petitioner provides a slightly different expression for the level of ordinary skill in the art (see Pet. 9–10), it substantively agrees with Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill and adopting Petitioner’s precise level of ordinary skill would not change our decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Patent Owner presents several pages of argument about claim construction, but offers no proposed construction for any of the claim terms. See PO Resp. 11–18. “Petitioner maintains that no claim construction is necessary.” Pet. Resp. 4. We determine that no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing 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 successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “with a restaurant’s timeclock programs, time and attendance systems, and/or payroll processing systems. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 69, 108. Webb discloses that, in a restaurant setting, a POS system can be communicatively coupled to a time and attendance server. See Ex. 1006, Abstract, 24:51–60, Figs. 1A, 1B. Thus, Marshall and Webb describe similar and compatible systems in the same field of art—systems for tracking employee and sales information in the hospitality business. And Petitioner provides evidence that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine these teachings in the claimed manner. See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 207–212. Patent Owner argues that Webb “does not cure the deficiencies” of Marshall. PO Resp. 41. However, as discussed above, we disagree with Patent Owner regarding Marshall’s deficiencies. Thus, Webb need not cure these alleged deficiencies in Marshall.10 Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 4–7, 9, and 11–13 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall and Webb. 10 Patent Owner also mentions that there is “simply no motivation to combine Marshall and Webb.” PO Sur-Reply 7; see also PO Resp. 42. But Patent Owner does not address the arguments and evidence set forth by Petitioner.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s client-side-only arguments are overly focussed on the setup disclosed in Marshall’s Figure 3, and, in any event, do not coincide with Petitioner’s citations to Marshall. Petitioner points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s multi-employer 8 The ’050 Patent lists a provisional application filed on September 4, 2012 as a related application. Ex. 1004, code (60). 9 Marshall discloses that “data transfer” can be “data transfer is performed via uploading and downloading via HyperText Transfer Protocol (‘HTTP’), Extensible Markup Language (‘XML’), and/or HTML as is known in the art.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 110. embodiment. See Pet. Reply 6. Petitioner also points out in its Reply that Patent Owner (and its expert) fail to address Marshall’s disclosure that the server executing the GrataSoft software can be separate (i.e., not co-located) with the POS server executing the Aloha software. Id. at 10. In Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply, these topics remained undiscussed. See PO Sur-Reply 1–6. Both aspects of Petitioner’s contentions support that Marshall’s system does disclose a gratuity management system that is separate and distinct from the client POS servers. Patent Owner argues that there would be problems “associated with calculations of gratuities based on client-specific information extracted from disparate, ad hoc client business systems.” PO Resp. 27–28; Ex. 2006 69–73. Patent Owner also argues that there would be “problems associated with scale-up and transitioning to a cloud-based system, and associated cost and security issue. PO Resp. 27; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 87–91. However, as discussed above, the ’050 Patent portrays that a POSITA would have the education and experience enabling him/her to effectively handle the conversion of a singlerestaurant system to a multi-restaurant system; and to transition to a safe and secure cloud system in a cost/time effective manner. Thus, these problems would not detract from the obviousness of a multi-restaurant and/or cloud-based version of Marshall’s invention. Patent Owner does not otherwise contest Petitioner’s contention with respect to this asserted ground of unpatentability. Consequently, we conclude that, on the record before us, Petitioner has proven that claims 1–3, 8, and 10 would have been would have been obvious over Marshall.” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 9,741,050 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,741,050
• Par-Kan Company, LLC v. Unverferth Manufacturing CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01427 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 10–21, finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 10–20 were unpatentable and declining institution based at most on claim 21.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “1. Legal Standards A patent owner may antedate a reference by proving an earlier 4 Assembly Manual: Part Number 80504785 REV A, Hiniker Company, Jan. 2001 (“Hiniker Manual”) (Ex. 1007). 5 Screen capture of the archived version of a Hiniker Company webpage captured by the Internet Archive on March 14, 2006, available at https://web.archive.org/web/20060314112127/http://www.hiniker. com/ag_products/4800features.htm (“Hiniker Webpage”) (Ex. 1008). 237 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see 37 C.F.R. § 1.131. For an actual reduction to practice, a patent owner must show three things: (1) construction of an embodiment or performance of a process meeting all limitations in the challenged claims; (2) “that the invention would work for its intended purpose”; and (3) “sufficient evidence to corroborate inventor testimony regarding these events.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2006). If a patent owner attempts to antedate a reference in an inter partes review, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting an invention date before the reference’s effective date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At the institution stage of an inter partes review, the statutory “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution applies to the issue whether a reference qualifies as prior art. Cf. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12 (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 6

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “contend that Morris and Hiniker Webpage are not available as prior art with regard of claim 21 because Patent Owner does not contend the invention of claim 21 was actually reduced to practice prior to the alleged publication dates of Morris and Hiniker Webpage. Nevertheless, even assuming a reasonable likelihood of prevailing was shown by Petitioner with respect to claim 21, we still consider whether we should exercise discretion to deny the Petition. That is because when a petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to one or more claims institution of review remains discretionary. SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). The Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at” slip op. at 14

  • BurdenDecided for patent owner

    “3500 persuaded us that Petitioner, as explained below, has not produced sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood in refuting that the subject matter of claims 10–20 was actually reduced to practice (i) before February 15, 2006; (ii) no later than February 18, 2006; (iii) no later than February 28, 2006; and (iv) no later than May 16, 2006. Accordingly, Patent Owner persuaded us that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood in establishing that either Morris, which published by August 13, 2006, or Hiniker Webpage, which published by March 14, 2006, are prior art to claims 10–20 of the ’123 patent.” slip op. at 11

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

    “4. Conclusion Petitioner’s grounds all rely upon either Morris (Ex. 1004) or Hinkier Webpage (Ex. 1008) with respect to claims 10–20 of the ’123 patent. Pet. 1. establishing that either Morris or Hiniker Webpage are prior art to claims 10–20, we determine that Petitioner fails to show a reasonable likelihood that claims 10–20 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 13

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,745,123
• Par-Kan Company, LLC v. Unverferth Manufacturing CompanyInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2024-01426 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because Petitioner did not show Morris or the Hiniker Webpage was prior art for claims 16–22, and declined institution for claim 23 in view of efficiency.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting an invention date before the reference’s effective date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At the institution stage of an inter partes review, the statutory “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution applies to the issue whether a reference qualifies as prior art. Cf. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12 (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 7

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “partes review, the patent owner bears the burden of producing evidence supporting an invention date before the reference’s effective date. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At the institution stage of an inter partes review, the statutory “reasonable likelihood” standard for institution applies to the issue whether a reference qualifies as prior art. Cf. Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 12 (precedential) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)).” slip op. at 7

  • Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied

    “The Board may consider the number of claims and grounds that meet the reasonable likelihood standard when deciding whether to institute inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). See Chevron Oronite Co. v. Infineum USA L.P., IPR2018-00923, Paper 9 at 10–11 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018) (informative); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-01310, Paper 7 at” slip op. at 14

  § 102 anticipationDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 8,967,940
• Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01456 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10–17 are unpatentable as obvious over Imai and Higashi, with Grzesik or Pacala for dependent claims; remaining grounds were not reached.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering or physics, plus 2–3 years of experience in LiDAR design. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–77). Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical or electrical engineering and two to three years of work experience with electro-optical and electro-mechanical devices or systems, with, at a minimum, at least one year of work experience was with LIDAR designs, where less work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education or vice versa. PO Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 60). We agree with and will apply Patent Owner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill is reflective of the education and experience that would have been required to understand the problems and solutions identified in the ’381 patent and the prior art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “The term “coincident with” as used in the ’381 patent does not require perfect coincidence. To explain why, we provide an annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’381 patent below. In Figure 2 above, the rays of electromagnetic radiation indicated in red originate from illumination source 111, but they are not coincident with the corresponding aperture’s field of view, and instead they are absorbed or blocked by the aperture layer’s stop region. Ex. 1001, 3:61–4:5. As Figure 2 shows, out of five ray lines emitted by illumination source 111, only three are within its corresponding aperture’s field of view. This conveys an understanding that “coincident with” does not require perfect matching of the discrete spot of radiation from the illumination source and the aperture’s field of view.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We begin with the language of the claims. The claims merely require that the “plurality of pixels are arranged in a second arrangement, proportional to the first arrangement.” Ex. 1001, 17:30–31. There are no other specific requirements about “first arrangement” or the “second arrangement” and no specific requirement about what kind of “proportional[ity]” is required. Thus, the language of the claims does not provide a basis for Patent Owner’s narrow reading, nor does it necessarily preclude it.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner identifies multiple reasons to make this combination. First, with respect to Higashi’s bandpass filter, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been prompted to implement Imai’s system to include a bandpass filter for the received light (as suggested by Higashi) so as to advantageously pass through only light of the operational wavelength of the corresponding laser emitter and ‘eliminate the effect of background light.’” Id. at 60 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 86; Ex. 1003 ¶ 256). Petitioner contends that “the resulting combination would advantageously filter out interfering light sources along the optical path of each of the detector pixels, thereby improving accuracy, improving the signal-to-noise ratio, and reducing the likelihood of false detections at the detector pixel.” Id. at 61. Second, Petitioner argues that “a POSITA would have been motivated to arrange multiple SPADs in each of Imai’s detector pixels (e.g., pixels 1- 16 in Imai’s FIG. 11) so that “erroneous detection of pixels[] can be reduced” and improved accuracy is achieved.” Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 71–72; Ex. 1003 ¶ 257; Ex. 1009 ¶ 48). Third, Petitioner contends that using Higashi’s multi-SPADs in Imai’s detector pixels would have led to uninterrupted performance when an individual diode is quenched, and would have furthered Imai’s objective of “inhibiting the increase of detection obtaining time” because multi-SPADs facilitate high speed data processing as they can take turns to receive the incoming photons. Id. (Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 71, 72; Ex. 1027 ¶¶ 3– 4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 258). Fourth, Petitioner asserts that the combination “was simply the” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,178,381 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,178,381
• Giesecke+devrient GmbH / Giesecke+devrient Currency Technology GmbH et al. v. Lumenco, LLCRehearing denied
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2024-00837 · APJ Benjamin D M Wood · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 3–7, and 9–13.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “rehearing without prior authorization from the Board.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request must “specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply, or a surreply.” Id. “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c).” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner misreads limitation [1d], and in particular fails to accord proper meaning to the word “each” in this limitation. “A claim must be read in accordance with the precepts of English grammar.” In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Importantly, “[e]ach is treated as singular . . . when it comes before a singular noun (e.g., each house): Each group is responsible for its own quality control—A. Francis, 1986;” and “when it is followed by of and a plural noun (e.g. each of the houses): each of the three parties has a right to a confidential briefing (not have).” Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage 242 (J. Butterfield ed., 4th ed. 2015). Thus, each refers to each singular (i.e., individual) set of micro mirrors, even though it is followed by “of the sets.” The plain language of limitation [1d] confirms that “each of the sets” is singular by using the singular verb tense “has” rather than the plural tense “have.” Ex. 1001, 28:31. Accordingly, as we held in the Decision (Dec. 17), limitation [1d] requires that each individual set of micro mirrors has a differing cone angle offset. The rest of the limitation’s subject language—“providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images”—does not change this result. “[P]roviding the pixels” identifies the relevant “each of the sets of the micro mirrors,” and “for each of the differing ones of the images” identifies the relevant “pixels.” In combination, “providing the pixels for each of the differing ones of the images” clarifies that “each of the sets of the micro mirrors” has, as an antecedent basis, the set (singular) of micro mirrors recited in limitation [1c]. This limitation reads: “the array of micro mirrors includes, for each of the pixels of each of the images, a set of the micro mirrors each having a reflective surface oriented to reflect the ambient light toward a point on the plane corresponding to one of the pixels.” Ex. 1001, 28:24–28 (emphasis added). Thus, each individual set of micro mirrors must have a different cone angle offset from that of the other sets of micro mirrors, whether or not they provide pixels for the same or different images. Petitioner’s interpretation of this language as not requiring differing cone angle offset for sets of micro mirrors forming pixels within the same image (Reh’g Req. 7) is therefore incorrect.” slip op. at 5

  Claim constructioncites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,317,691
• Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01421 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21 and 23–34 are unpatentable as obvious over Pacala and Droz, or Pacala, Droz, and Villenueve; the Board did not reach the Hall-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 11,175,405 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,175,405
• Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Ouster, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2025 · IPR2023-01457 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 44–48 and 50 are unpatentable as obvious over Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik; the Board did not reach the other grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to know the relevant prior art. 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)). In determining the skill level, the Board may consider various factors including the “type of problems encountered in the prior 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.” Id. “In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate.” Id.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In relation to Grounds 1A to 1D, Petitioner and Patent Owner dispute whether the claimed “stop region” can encompass a partially transparent material as disclosed by Retterath. PO Resp. 21; Pet. Reply 7–8; PO Sur-Reply 10. Because we do not reach Grounds 1A to 1D in this decision (see § III.D, infra), we need not and do not decide whether a “stop region” may include a partially transparent material. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375, supra.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “The term “coincident with” as used in the ’750 patent does not require perfect coincidence. To explain why, we provide an annotated version of Figure 2 of the ’750 patent below. In Figure 2 above, the rays of electromagnetic radiation indicated in red originate from illumination source 111, but they are not coincident with the corresponding aperture’s field of view, and instead they are absorbed or blocked by the aperture layer’s stop region. Ex. 1001, 3:51–63. As Figure 2 shows, out of five ray lines emitted by illumination source 111, only three are within its corresponding aperture’s field of view. This conveys an understanding that “coincident with” does not require perfect matching of the discrete spot of radiation from the illumination source and the aperture’s field of view.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that multiple reasons would have prompted a POSITA to combine Grzesik’s cross talk absorption layer (corresponding to the claimed “aperture layer”) in the Imai-Higashi combination. Pet. 51–53. First, Petitioner contends that implementing Grzesik’s absorption layer in the Imai-Higashi combination would reduce cross talk consistent with Imai’s objective of improving resolution by allowing for more pixels to be used in a specified detection area. Id. at 51–52 (citing Ex. 1012, 4:65–5:6, 5:11–32; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 6–7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 212–213). Second, Petitioner asserts that the combination would have been prompted as “the application of known techniques (Grzesik’s suggested improvement for a cross talk absorption layer to reduce secondary detection) to a known system (the primary Imai LiDAR system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (benefits articulated above).” Id. at 52 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417). Petitioner asserts that “a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success at adapting Grzesik’s cross talk absorption layer to the scanning laser radar of the Imai-Higashi combination.” Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 214). Specifically, Petitioner contends that “Grzesik demonstrates the known benefits of implementing a cross talk absorption layer disposed on the detector array, with apertures of the cross talk absorption layer aligned with individual detectors, and describes using its cross talk absorption layer on Geiger-mode APDs (e.g., SPADs) as used by the Imai-Higashi combination.” Id. at 52–53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 214). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions concerning the motivation to combine Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik, or the reasonable expectation of success a POSITA would have had in making the combination. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Imai, Higashi, and Grzesik with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,190,750 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,190,750

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.