- Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.InstitutedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,762,002 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.InstitutedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,258,676 - Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co. Ltd. / Yealink Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. Barco N.V.InstitutedPTAB · 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 · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,422,951 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,089,946 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,814,071 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01295 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Shaffer and Saylor; the Board did not reach the alternative Gogic and Opitz ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“1. Shaffer (Ex. 1004) Shaffer is a U.S. Patent Application Publication published on” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“1. Rationale to Combine Shaffer and Saylor Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would” slip op. at 23
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21–24 of U.S. Patent 8,994,830 B2 are unpatentable on the bases set forth in the following table. Claim(s)” slip op. at 86
Patent outcomesUS 8,994,830 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,994,830 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01294 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20 as obvious over Kim; claims 3–5, 13, 14, 18, and 19 over Kim and Ishibashi; and claim 10 over Kim and Goss.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“patent “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 5; see also id. (“A person with less or different education but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.”). Patent Owner very similarly proposes that the skilled artisan “would have [had] a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years [of] experience in designing or developing telecommunication systems.” PO Resp. 24–25 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶42). Both of the parties’ proposals as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are consistent with the disclosure of the ’664 patent and the asserted prior art. The distinction between the parties’ proposals is minimal and would not change the outcome of this Decision. Thus, we adopt and apply Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“16). We generally agree, with the one caveat acknowledged by counsel for Patent Owner during the hearing. The caveat is that, although step [a] must be performed before step [b], it is within the scope of claim 1 if step [a] continues to be performed even after step [b] begins. Tr. 25:25–26:3 (Mr. Engel: “Well, I think in practicality, there would always be monitoring because there’s multiple media streams. So, you could have multiple alerts come in and the system could decide which one is more important. So, I don’t think you stop monitoring per se.”). We agree that continued performance of step [a], even after step [b] begins, is within the scope of claim 1. Second, Patent Owner proposes that “endpoint” means “end-user device,” as agreed to in district court. PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004, 16). We adopt this construction. However, as will become evident below, this construction does little to address the actual dispute between the parties regarding application of “endpoint” to the prior art asserted in Ground 7 (Kim). Third, Patent Owner proposes that “media stream” means “audio or video or both, which may include associated data,” as adjudicated in district court. PO Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2004, 42). We adopt this construction.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Analogous artUnpatentable
“2. Combination of Kim and Ishibashi Petitioner argues that both references are from the same field of endeavor as the ’664 patent, namely emergency communication systems. Pet. 80 (citing various portions of Exhibits 1001, 1008, and 1009). We are persuaded of this fact, which, in any event, Patent Owner does not dispute. See PO Resp. 57 (arguing against Ground 8 solely on the basis of its Ground 7 arguments). Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Kim and Ishibashi because the former teaches “that a goal of emergency warning broadcast systems is to ensure that the viewer receives the emergency warning information” and the latter teaches a means to achieving that goal. Pet. 80–81 (citing Ex. 1008, 3:13–19; Ex. 1002 ¶304; Ex. 1009 ¶¶5, 15, 17). More specifically, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to implement Ishibashi’s audio output-switchover circuit in Kim’s controller system . . . to ensure that an emergency warning broadcast is received by the viewer even in situations where a headphone jack is left plugged in but unattended (e.g., not being worn) by the viewer.” Pet. 81 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶305). Petitioner argues that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a combination and the result would have been predictable. Id. at 82 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶306). We are persuaded by Petitioner’s stated reasons for the combination as well as that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Further, Patent Owner does not dispute these factual assertions underlying the obviousness analysis. PO Resp. 57.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,831,664 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,831,664 - Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Sta Group LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01292 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, and 17–21 are unpatentable over Ohel; claims 5 and 11–16 were not shown unpatentable over Ohel or Nigawara.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Mr. Williams, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and would have had approximately two years industry experience in networking or communication systems.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 55–58). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 9. Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. On the complete record, we adopt this level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We have considered the parties’ citations to the specification and find examples that support Petitioner’s view that the term “entity” is broad enough to encompass dispatchers and individual users. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:52–4:5, 7:18–20, Fig. 1). However, we find no disclosure that redefines “entity” or excludes dispatchers and individual users from the category of “entity.” Patent Owner’s best examples (e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:15–21, 3:59–62) are no more than non-limiting examples. On the complete record, we conclude that “entity” is broad enough to include dispatchers and individual users.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot reached
“have used a queue with Ohel’s system. This is insufficient because it does not provide evidence of a reason why a skilled artisan would have implemented Ohel’s system with a queue. See Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc., 32 F.4th 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan ‘not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.’” (quoting Belden Inc. v. Berk- Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted))).” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 7,324,802 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,324,802 - Apple Inc. v. Proxsense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2024-01486 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution for claims 1–17 because Apple did not justify a second petition, and denied its motion to join IPR2024-00775.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“challenges a subset of the claims of the ’730 patent based on the prior art references Ludtke and Kon, while the instant Petition challenges all 17 claims of the ’730 patent based on the prior art references Burger and Robinson. Id. at 2–3. According to Petitioner, these are “significantly different invalidity grounds.” Id. at 3. However, Petitioner does not explain why challenging the same patent with different invalidity grounds, without more, justifies instituting both petitions.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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 . . . 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 explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’730 patent. We also deny Petitioner’s Joinder Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“IPR2024-00775. Joinder Mot. 1. As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to joinder. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,352,730 - Apple Inc. v. Proxsense LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 26, 2025 · IPR2024-01485 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–29 under § 314(a), finding insufficient justification for a second petition, and denied Apple’s motion for joinder.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“According to PTAB guidance, “[b]ased on the Board’s experience, one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) 59 (Nov. 2019), available at https://go.usa.gov/xpvPF. “Two or more petitions filed against the same patent at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary response by the patent owner),” the situation we have here, “may place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns.” Id. Thus, “multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.” Id. That said, the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, when the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation or when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references. In such cases two petitions by a petitioner may be needed, although this should be rare. Id. In such situations, a petitioner is invited to identify, either in its petition or a separate ranking paper (Petitioner filed the Ranking Notice): (1) a ranking of the petitions in the order in which it wishes the Board to consider the merits, if the Board uses its discretion to institute any of the petitions, and (2) a succinct explanation of the differences between the petitions, why the issues addressed by the differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to institute additional petitions if it identifies one petition that satisfies petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).” slip op. at 4
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2019). 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 . . . 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 explained below, we decline to institute an inter partes review of the ’954 patent. We also deny Petitioner’s Joinder Motion.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, deniedDenied
“(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter parties review under section 314. “To join a party to an instituted [inter partes review (IPR)], the plain language of § 315(c) requires two different decisions.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “First, the statute requires that the Director (or the Board acting through a delegation of authority) . . . determine whether the joinder applicant’s petition for IPR ‘warrants’ institution under § 314.” Id. “Second, to effect joinder, § 315(c) requires the Director to exercise h[er] discretion to decide whether to ‘join as a party’ the joinder applicant.” Id. “The statute makes clear that the joinder decision is made after a determination that a petition warrants institution, thereby affecting the manner in which an IPR will proceed.” Id. (citing Thyrv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, 140 S.Ct. 1367, 1377 (2020)). As we explain above, Petitioner has not shown that we should institute a second Petition by Petitioner challenging the ’954 patent. Instead, we determine that the Petition does not warrant institution. Accordingly, the Joinder Motion fails at the first step, whether the Petition warrants institution, and we need not evaluate further the second step, whether to join Petitioner as a party to IPR2024-00846. Petitioner’s Joinder Motion is denied.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,886,954
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.