- Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–13 and 15–16 on anticipation and obviousness grounds, and claim 14 on obviousness over Choulis.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’164 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with organic optoelectronic light-emitting devices. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice versa. Pet. 12. Patent Owner repeatedly refers to “a POSITA” without addressing the definition of that term or contesting Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Resp. 1, 2 n.1, 3, 8, 9, 15–21, 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44–49, 51–57, 61, 62 (bare references to “a POSITA”). Neither party indicates that the ultimate result on patentability would change depending on the definition selected. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is not contested, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1004, (code 57); Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1008, code (57); Ex. 1009, code (57) (abstracts of the references asserted in the patentability challenges).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“because no information raised during the trial phase of this review changes the calculus: First and foremost, the plain terms of claim 1 include no language from which we reasonably can impose limits on the phrase “matrix material” as urged by Patent Owner. In addition, the specification includes no special definition of that phrase that supports importing Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing limitation into the claim. Furthermore, we are directed to no disclaimer of claim scope during patent prosecution that would support Patent Owner’s twice-rejected argument that the phrase “matrix material” in claim 1 excludes embedded dopants and dispersed agglomerations. And the extrinsic evidence advanced by Patent Owner during this review is ineffective to override the clear interpretation of “matrix material” that is established by the intrinsic evidence. Reply 1–7.10” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We find that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. We agree with Petitioner, in that regard, that Choulis explicitly teaches “using spin-coating as a method for depositing materials, which involves a simultaneous application process” as required by claim 13. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1044 ¶ 45).16 We 15 Petitioner raises Djobo as a background reference supporting that Choulis anticipates deposition of PVK by evaporation. Pet. 41. Patent Owner counters that Djobo, to the contrary, shows that Choulis does not teach deposition of PVK by evaporation. Resp. 48. In other words, both parties cite Djobo in connection with the ground based on anticipation by Choulis. Against that backdrop, we determine that Patent Owner waives any argument that Petitioner improperly cites Djobo as a background reference in support of the anticipation challenge, which is based on Choulis alone. Resp. 48 (nowhere asserting that the challenge is deficient on that basis). That waiver arises because no argument, in that regard, is raised in Patent Owner’s Response see Inst. Dec. 34 (“The Board shall deemed waived any issue not raised by Patent Owner in a timely response to the Petition . . . .”). 16 Patent Owner’s statement that “spin coating tends to cause phase separation” is not developed adequately on this record and, therefore, is further agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “has not contested this point.” Resp. 48. “Therefore, there is no genuine dispute regarding the unpatentability of claim 13,” although Patent Owner raises “arguments concerning evaporation, which is a distinct process from spin-coating” relevant to the additional limitations of claim 14. Reply 16. We determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. Patent Owner, however, has the better position on whether Choulis anticipates claim 14, which “includes the requirement of applying matrix materials via evaporation coating.” Reply 16. Petitioner seems to abandon that challenge in the Reply by raising arguments that appear, on this record, to bear exclusively on whether the subject matter of claim 14 would have been obvious over Choulis.17 Id. at 16–17. Those arguments are insufficient to counter Patent Owner’s reasons why Choulis does not anticipate the “evaporation coating” limitation of claim 14. Compare id., with Resp. 48. On this record, therefore, we determine that Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 14. unpersuasive to persuade us “that Choulis does not have three matrix materials.” Sur-reply 15. That argument runs counter to Choulis’s explicit, intrinsic disclosures, which illustrate (Ex. 1004, Fig. 4) and describe (id. ¶ 30) an organic light emitting layer composed of three matrix materials. See Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 4, ¶ 30); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88 (persuasive declaration testimony of Dr. Holmes, cited at Pet. 24–25). 17 There is some confusion on this point, given that both parties sometimes collapse, into a single argument, whether Choulis anticipates or renders obvious claim 1. Compare Resp. 48, with Reply 16–17.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“On this record, therefore, we determine that Choulis, at minimum, suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized PMMA as a suitable alternative to PVK in Choulis’s Figure 4 embodiment, notwithstanding any differences raised by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. Patent Owner’s argument that no disclosure in Choulis suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have found it desirable to use PMMA in place of PVK in Choulis’s devices” misses the mark, where Choulis includes both PMMA and PVK in lists of materials suitable for use as host or matrix materials. Resp. 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. “Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Even if Choulis does not expressly disclose substituting PMMA for PVK in the Figure 4 embodiment, “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make that substitution.” Reply 10 (citing Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 100; Ex. 1044 ¶ 23)). The suggestion for that substitution is set forth unambiguously in Choulis’s listing of both “PVK” and “PMMA” as materials suitable for use as a first “host” material in Choulis’s organic functional layer; that is, “the light emitting layer” that is “described above” in Figure 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. ii. Alternative Reasoning for Replacing PVK with PMMA Patent Owner counterargues that using PPMA in place of PVK would have been understood to “upset the hole and electron balance,” as well as “affect hole-charge recombination,” and “degrade the performance of the resulting OLED system.” Resp. 37. Petitioner responds with evidence that “it would have been a routine task for” an ordinarily skilled artisan “to optimize the composition of each component within the light-emitting layer to achieve the desired charge balance.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24). Petitioner’s response brings to light a second reason why an ordinarily” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,723,164 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,723,164 - Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01095 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2, 4, 9–12, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103 over the Diekmann- and Suzuki-based combinations with the respective secondary references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with organic optoelectronic light-emitting devices.” Pet. 10. Further, “[a]n individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s formulation. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed definition because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. See, e.g., Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1011, code (57).” slip op. at 7
- BurdenUnpatentable
“III. OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS Petitioner contends that claims 2, 4, 9–12, and 17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. For the reasons explained below, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that these claims are unpatentable over the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“Resp. 16–24. We addressed this same issue in our Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01094. IPR2024-01094, Paper 42 at 9–13. As we explained there, Ma qualifies as prior art printed publication because the record evidence supports what Ma says on its face—that it was published online on August 29, 2008 by an Elsevier, an established publisher, in Synthetic Metals, which is a reputable journal. Id. For the same reason explained in IPR2024-01094, we agree with Petitioner that Ma qualifies as a prior art printed publication.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“additional feature in claims 2 and 12, Patent Owner raises a number of challenges to Petitioner’s asserted rationale for combining Ma. See PO Resp. 27–47. First, Patent Owner asserts that skilled artisans would not have used Ma’s Liq dopant in Diekmann/Suzuki because both employ electron-donor dopants that operate differently from Liq’s electron-hopping dopant. Id. at 28–31. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it highlights a difference in the references’ dopants without identifying any incompatibility. Even if Diekmann and Suzuki teach electron-donor type ndopants as Patent Owner asserts, neither precludes or disparages Ma’s electron-hopping dopant. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from . . . alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). As Petitioner explains, “Liq acts as an n-dopant in Ma,” which “increases ETL conductivity.” Pet. Reply 10. Patent Owner does not contest that Liq acts as an n-dopant in Ma. See Pet. Reply 30. Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combinations “substitute one known n-dopant for another to further the same goal of improving ETL conductivity.” Pet. Reply 10. Next, Patent Owner faults Petitioner for failing to show that using Ma’s Liq dopant in Diekmann’s/Suzuki’s ETL would result in lower diffusion or higher efficiencies as compared to Diekmann’s/Suzuki’s preferred n-dopants, which included cesium, barium, or lithium fluoride. PO Resp. 31–35; see PO Sur-reply 4–5. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because Petitioner does not need to show that Ma’s Liq n-dopant “was an improvement in a categorical sense” over Diekmann’s/Suzuki’s n-dopants, so long as Ma’s n-dopant was known and one skilled in the art would understand that implementing it had advantages. See Intel Corp. v. Pact XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[O]ur case law does not require that a particular combination must be the preferred, or the most desirable, combination described in the prior art.”). Petitioner does not assert skilled artisans would have used Liq because it was a superior to Diekmann’s/Suzuki’s preferred dopants, but because doping ETLs with Liq had known benefits including lower driving voltage and enhanced power efficiency from enhanced carrier injection increased transport conductivity, as compared to an undoped device. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1010, 813). That other potentially suitable or even superior n-dopants were also known does not make Liq nonobvious. Given Liq’s benefits outlined above, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that its proffered combination of Ma’s known dopant in Diekmann’s/Suzuki’s device would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 11,828,425 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 11,828,425 - PTAB · Oct 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on claims 1–11 because Petitioners showed a reasonable likelihood of proving at least one challenged claim unpatentable across the asserted grounds.
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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioners meet the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–11 of the ’847 patent based upon Petitioners’ asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had a master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, materials science, or a related field and three years of work experience in semiconductor manufacturing, such as, for example, in integrated circuit device (or transistor) design and/or manufacturing,” and “[a]dditional relevant education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience or training could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 38). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’847 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner does not propose any claim constructions, except to explain that the claim 7 limitation “the spacer further comprises an offset spacer, positioned between the gate and the spacer,” is “satisfied if one layer (an ‘offset spacer’) of the claimed ‘spacer’ lies between another layer of the ‘spacer’ and the gate.” Pet. 11. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions or offer any claim constructions. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because resolution of Petitioner’s proposed construction is unnecessary to our analyses for purposes of this decision, we do not address the proposal here. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We do not discern a need to construe any other claim language at this juncture because doing so would have no effect on our analyses below of Petitioner’s asserted grounds and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. See Realtime Data, LLC, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“a. Claim 1 Petitioner contends that claim 1 is anticipated by Lan or, alternatively, obvious in view of Lan. Pet. 18–26. Petitioner explains how Lan teaches or suggests each recitation of claim 1, and Petitioner’s position is supported by adequate evidence for institution. Id. (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 100–125). Petitioner, for example, persuasively compares the structure of Figure 12 of Lan to each limitation of claim 1. Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contentions except to argue that Lan (and the Petition’s other asserted references) “Do Not Mention, Describe, or Concern ‘Raised Epitaxial Layers.’” Prelim. Resp. 22–24. Patent Owner does not persuasively undermine Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,847 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 1–21, applying the construction of “association” used in the parallel petition.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“The Director Review Decision determined that we should not have instituted inter partes review in both proceedings. DR 1. Instead, we “should have construed [‘association’] and instituted review of, at most, one of the petitions.” Id. at 3. Given this, the Director Review Decision vacated this proceeding’s Institution Decision and the 70 Institution Decision, remanding “to the Board panel to determine which of the two proceedings, if Board should construe the term ‘association,’” the Director Review Decision instructed us to “consider the parties’ claim construction arguments in making [our] determination.” Id. at 4. As we explain in a concurrently issued decision in IPR2025-00070, the parties have persuaded us that the correct construction of the ’872 patent claims’ recitation of “association” is the construction advanced and applied in the 70 Petition, not the narrower, possible construction addressed in this proceeding’s Petition. IPR2025-00070, Paper 28. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As we explain in a concurrently issued decision in IPR2025-00070, the parties have persuaded us that the correct construction of the ’872 patent claims’ recitation of “association” is the construction advanced and applied in the 70 Petition, not the narrower, possible construction addressed in this proceeding’s Petition. IPR2025-00070, Paper 28. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“As we explain in a concurrently issued decision in IPR2025-00070, the parties have persuaded us that the correct construction of the ’872 patent claims’ recitation of “association” is the construction advanced and applied in the 70 Petition, not the narrower, possible construction addressed in this proceeding’s Petition. IPR2025-00070, Paper 28. Accordingly, we deny institution of inter partes review in this proceeding. II. ORDER It is: ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the petitioned institution of inter partes review of the ’872 patent is denied.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 is unpatentable over Capalik.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewOther
“Patent Owner then filed a Request for Director Review, arguing that Petitioner did not need two petitions to challenge the ’872 patent’s claims. Paper 19. Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Director Review. Paper 25 (“Director Review Decision” or “DR Dec.”); IPR2025-00068, Paper 25. The Director Review Decision vacated this proceeding’s Institution Decision and the 68 Institution Decision, remanding “to the Board panel to Authorizing the parties to brief “how the Board should construe the term ‘association,’” the Director Review Decision instructed us to “consider the parties’ claim construction arguments in making [our] determination.” Id.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Thus, the parties agree on the correct construction of “association.” And the parties persuade us to adopt their construction: “association” does not require any classification as authorized or unauthorized. Pet. 4–8; PO Remand Br. 1–3; Pet. Resp. Br. 1–2. This construction of “association” is the one applied in this Petition’s claim challenges, which comports with (1) our earlier determination that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing and (2) Petitioner’s preference for this Petition over the 68 Petition. Pet. 4–8, 13–74; Dec. 10–22; Paper 3, 2; Pet. Resp. Br. 2, 5.” slip op. at 13
- BurdenDecided for petitioner
“D. The Merits of Petitioner’s Claim Challenges In our Institution Decision, after weighing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determined that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of at least claim 1 of the ’872 patent as obvious over Capalik. E.g., Dec. 16–22. Based on all of the arguments and evidence currently of record, we remain persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 of the ’872 patent. Indeed, as discussed above in Section II.A, the parties’ agreement on the correct construction of “association” reinforces this determination. III. CONCLUSION In view of the foregoing, having determined that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing at least claim 1 of the ’872 patent is unpatentable, we institute trial as to all challenged claims on all grounds stated in the Petition IV. ORDER It is: ORDERED that inter partes review of claims 1–21 of the ’872 patent is instituted on all grounds presented in the Petition; and” slip op. at 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“institution under § 325(d). Prior to our Institution Decision, Patent Owner did not argue we should deny under § 325(d). See generally Prelim. Resp.; Pet. Resp. Br. 4. Patent Owner first raised § 325(d) while its Request for Director Review was pending, emailing the Office with a request to brief § 325(d) in view of Ecto World. Ex. 3101, 4–5. The Office did not grant that request. Id. at 1. Nor did the Director Review Decision authorize Patent Owner to brief § 325(d). It only authorized Patent Owner “to file a ten-page brief explaining how the Board should construe the term ‘association.’” DR Dec. 4. In sum, Patent Owner’s unauthorized § 325(d) arguments are waived. Moreover, even if Patent Owner had not waived its § 325(d) arguments, we find Petitioner’s § 325(d) arguments more persuasive.” slip op. at 16
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - Shenzhen Xinzexing E-Commerce Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00222 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–23, and 25–33 are unpatentable, including as anticipated by Chen and as obvious over the Chen and Inskeep combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“have at least a Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical Engineering and at least two years of experience in the field of electrical engineering and specifically power supply management such as battery charging system design.” PO Resp. 31. Petitioner presents a similar formulation. Pet. 10. Although we do not discern any meaningful distinction between the parties’ formulations, we adopt Patent Owner’s description of a person of ordinary skill as it is consistent with the prior art and challenged patent’s specification. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“a first current through one or more output ports of the at least one output port in a first operating mode,” and “is configured to output a second current capable of starting a vehicle engine through the pair of output terminals in a second operating mode.” Ex. 1001, 8:25–34. Claim 21 has similar first and second operating-mode limitations. Id. at 9:40–46. Patent Owner proposes that “[t]he proper construction for ‘first operating mode’ is ‘an operating mode of the portable backup charger wherein the battery pack is configured to output a first current through one or more output ports of the at least one output port, and outputting a second current capable of starting a vehicle engine through the pair of output terminals is inhibited.’” PO Resp. 25. Similarly, Patent Owner argues “[t]he proper construction for ‘second operating mode’ is ‘an operating mode of the portable backup charger wherein the battery pack is configured to output a second current capable of starting a vehicle engine through the pair of output terminals, and outputting a first current through one or more output ports of the at least one output port is inhibited.’” Id. at 27. Patent Owner asserts that claim differentiation supports its construction because dependent claim 3 recites “a third operating mode for outputting the first current and the second current simultaneously,” and “if the battery pack could output the first current and the second current simultaneously in the first operating mode, then there would be no difference between the claimed first operating mode and the claimed third operating mode.” Id. at 26. We disagree with Patent Owner’s constructions because, as Petitioner explains, they wrongly import current-inhibiting limitations beyond the plain language in the claim. Pet. Reply 1. Nothing in the at-issue language addresses inhibiting current. In addition, the claimed first and third operating modes are still distinct without importing additional limitations because outputting just the first current is sufficient for the first operating mode, but not for the third. In other words, whereas the third operating mode requires simultaneity, the first and second merely permit it. Thus, claim differentiation does not support Patent Owner’s construction. Last, although Patent Owner asserts that its construction “is consistent with the specification,” nothing in the cited passages describes inhibiting current. Prelim. Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:30–33, 5:30–33, 5:58–62). Instead, the specification characterizes the modes solely by what the portable charger “can output,” not what is inhibited. Ex. 1001, 4:30–33, 5:30–33, 5:58–62. Thus, we decline to read the first and second operating modes to require the current-inhibiting features that Patent Owner asserts.” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner argues the two current paths are not different because Chen’s Figure 1 shows they overlap between the lithium battery and the output control circuit and “only diverge when making the connection to the output control circuit.” PO Resp. 32. We disagree. First, Patent Owner’s argument is based on a claim construction for “different” current paths that we do not adopt for the reasons above. In addition, we agree with Petitioner that Chen shows the claimed different current paths even under Patent Owner’s construction. Pet. Reply 8–12. Specifically, as Petitioner explains, a skilled artisan would recognize that Chen’s physical circuits are depicted in Figures 4–7, rather than in Chen’s Figure 1, which is merely a “block diagram of the principle of present invention.” Id. at 9; Ex. 1006 ¶ 15. Unlike Figure 1, Chen’s Figures 5, 6, and 7 show current paths between the battery and USB outputs, and between the battery and DC multi-gear output, that do not overlap with the high current path shown in Chen’s Figure 4. Pet. 9–12. Based on Petitioner’s analysis and for the reasons above, we agree with Petitioner that Chen teaches the claimed “pair of output terminals coupled to the battery pack and having a current path to the battery pack different from that of the at least one output port to the battery pack.”” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner asserts one skilled in the art would not have added White’s fuse to Chen because doing so was “unnecessary” given Chen’s built-in relay K1 that already provides protection. PO Resp. 42–43. We disagree because, as Petitioner notes, “the Petition cited ample evidence that both layers of over current prevention provide improved safety and protection to the battery.” Pet. Reply 17 (citing Pet. 31–33); see also, e.g., Pet. 31 (describing “advantageously reduc[ing] the likelihood of damage”), id. at 32 (describing “the additional benefit of a safety fuse along a jumper cable to promptly cut off current in the event of a short circuit” and “more simplified maintenance and repair”). Given Petitioner’s unrebutted rationale, Petitioner has articulated sufficient reasoning with rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion that adding White’s fuse and polarity-protection connector to Chen’s power-supply system would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Other than the arguments addressed above, Patent Owner does not additionally challenge Petitioner’s obviousness showing based on Chen and White. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence and, based on that analysis, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 6–9, 11–14, 16–22, 25–28, and 30–33 would have been obvious over Chen and White.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 9,643,506 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 9,643,506 - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. / Google LLC et al. v. Headwater Research LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00341 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–17, 19, 21–27, 29, and 30 are unpatentable as obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Based on the full record, we find that Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’733 patent and the asserted prior art. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–31). We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s proposal is encompassed by Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 4. Our analysis below would not change, if we used Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Based on the full record, we do not need to interpret expressly any claim term. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached
“o) Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness Patent Owner does not present any arguments or evidence regarding any objective indicia of nonobviousness for any of the challenged claims. See PO Resp.” slip op. at 49
Patent outcomesUS 8,406,733 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,406,733 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00398 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 over Kalliola and Vauclair; claims 2, 3, and 6 with Kalayjian; claim 5 with Turunen; and claim 9 with Trimble.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner agrees with the qualifications proposed by Petitioner: “this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’680 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner proposes that, based on Patent Owner’s proposed construction in the parallel litigation, we construe “pairing signal” as “[p]rocessor signal to initiate a wireless device pairing sequence.” Pet. 6 (quoting Ex. 1009, 15–168). In Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s interpretation of this term. PO Resp. 14. We adopt the parties’ proposed construction for this term. We determine that we need not construe any other claim terms. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Second, Petitioner demonstrates that the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair teaches claim limitations 1(d)(iv) and 1(d)(v). As discussed and cited to above, the Petition identifies that, with Kalliola’s touch screen as the claimed “touch screen,” Kalliola’s processor presents a graphical user interface via its touch screen as set forth for limitation 1(c) and 1(d)(ii), and Kalliola’s processor operates in conjunction with its graphical user interface to perform claimed steps as set forth for limitation 1(d)(iii). See Pet. 20–29. We agree that the assertions are supported by Kalliola’s disclosure of a touch screen with a graphical user interface presented thereon, where “tactile elements” “allow the user . . . to enter data . . . into the device.” See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 26, 40, 42, 44, 51, 71, Figs. 3, 5. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that Kalliola teaches the use of Bluetooth-enabled emitters in remote devices that communicate with its wireless communication device with a signal emitter. Pet. 29–31 (citing Ex. 104 ¶¶ 9, 71, 73–75, 77, 107, Fig. 5). Petitioner contends, and we agree, that Vauclair provides additional specificity regarding the pairing process between two devices with its disclosures of a pairing process between devices using protocols that include Bluetooth, wherein a user can select a pairing option from a menu on a display. Id. at 31–32 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 22, 24, 28, 30, 34–36, 49, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–167). Petitioner argues, and we agree, that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Kalliola to use its processor to present “a pairing menu to enable a user to initiate a Bluetooth pairing process between the WCD and the signal emitter by selecting a pairing option via the WCD’s touchscreen,” with Vauclair teaching at least the selection of a pairing option presented on its display, because the presented pairing menu on Kalliola’s touch screen would allow the user to pair the WCD with the user’s personal item signal emitters and would also allow the devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. at 34–35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 172); see also Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 30, 36. Consequently, we also agree with Petitioner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to a person of skill of ordinary skill in the art that Kalliola’s graphical user interface on its touch screen would have generated signals corresponding to the user’s inputs at least to carry out designated functions, like the initiation of a pairing process, and “the signals generated by the GUI from interaction at the touchscreen would be sent to the WCD’s processor so that the processor can interpret the user’s inputs and take the appropriate action.” Pet. 35; see also Pet. Reply 2–7. Petitioner also asserts, and we agree, that generating processor signals in response to a user indication was a known mechanism for wireless devices, as were Bluetooth pairing and corresponding pairing menus, and there would be no change to the respective functions of Kalliola’s’ wireless communication devices and Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 175). The Petition argues, and we agree, that because Bluetooth pairing and pairing menus were conventional prior to time of the invention, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success configuring Kalliola’s wireless communication device. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–75 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices and associated pairing). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, a reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(iv). As to limitation 1(d)(v), we also agree with Petitioner that in response to a generation of a pairing signal as discussed in limitation 1(d)(iv), Vauclair discloses that wireless transceivers communicate a series of RF signals back and forth to pair the devices. Pet. 37–38. Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that, in combination, it would have been obvious to configure Kalliola’s Bluetooth transceiver with Vauclair’s teachings for the communication of RF signals to pair devices. Id. at 39. Petitioner contends, and we agree, that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kalliola teaches that its wireless communication device performs Bluetooth communications with signal emitters, with the user selecting a desired signal emitter for locating objects, and that this pairing would also allow two Bluetooth devices to recognize each other on subsequent connections. Id. (Ex. 1003 ¶ 184). Petitioner asserts, and we agree, that applying Vauclair’s known technique of communicating RF signals to pair devices would improve Kalliola’s wireless communication device and yield the predictable result of Bluetooth-paired devices. Id. We also agree with Petitioner’s argument that this pairing was an understood and conventional feature of Bluetooth mobile communication devices, so there was a reasonable expectation of success in the combination. Id. at 40 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 186); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72 (Dr. Buehrer providing evidence on Bluetooth-connected devices). Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence of rationale to combine Kalliola and Vauclair, reasonable likelihood of success in the combination, and that the prior art teaches limitation 1(d)(v).” slip op. at 40
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1003 ¶ 172. The Petition also asserts that, in the combination, there would be no change to the respective functions of either Kalliola’s WCD or Vauclair’s pairing menu. Pet. 36. Thus, the Petition relies on Kalliola’s processor, and its touchscreen, and graphical user interface with Vauclair’s teachings for the pairing menu displayed, wherein pairing signals are generated by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with the screen. As we discuss further below, Petitioner includes assertions that Vauclair itself teaches that the pairing signal is generated by its graphical user interface. See id. at 33, 37. The Petition, however, also relies on the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair to teach generating a pairing signal by Kalliola’s graphical user interface by interaction with its screen, as discussed above. Id. at 35. Accordingly, it is not necessary to reach the issue of whether Vauclair alone teaches that its graphical user interface generates the pairing signal. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s further arguments in its Reply concerning interaction with Kalliola’s wireless communication device through its graphical user interface were impermissibly presented in view of the Petition’s specific assertions on the teachings of the combination of Kalliola and Vauclair, as discussed above, and its reliance on user interaction with Kalliola’s graphical user interface for the teaching of generating the pairing signal. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,265,680 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,265,680 - Apple Inc. v. THL Holding Company, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00399 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 11–19 are unpatentable as obvious: claims 11–14 over Kalliola, Turunen, Oswald, Vauclair, and Kalayjian; claims 15–18 with Thorn; and claim 19 with Thorn and Sharp.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that the level of ordinary skill in the art corresponds to “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a similar technical field and 2-4 years of experience with wireless ranging and positioning systems, wireless communication devices, and associated computer programming.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). “Patent Owner agrees that this description reasonably represents the level of ordinary skill required to understand and implement the teachings of the ’246 Patent, as well as the prior art cited in the Petition.” PO Resp. 14 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 22). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“device.” This term appears twice in claim 11, once in the phrase “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” and once in the phrase “rotation of the mobile communication device detected by the orientation sensor.” Ex. 1001, 39:13–14, 39:36–38. Patent Owner argues that we should construe this term as limited to “detecting the rotation of the mobile communication device as a whole, not the movement of individual components.” PO Resp. 15–18. Petitioner disputes this, arguing that “rotation of the mobile communication device” should be construed not only to cover rotation of the device as a whole but also should “encompass[] any rotation of the mobile communication device relative to any object, including itself,” which would extend to rotation of “any component of the device.” Reply 4–5. We need not resolve this dispute to determine the outcome of Petitioner’s asserted challenges to the ’246 patent. As discussed more fully below, under either party’s proposed construction of “rotation of the mobile communication device,” Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyOther
“On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Kalliola teaches “an orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device,” where “rotation of the mobile communication device” includes rotation of the device as a whole, regardless of whether it also includes rotation of one portion of the device relative to another. Kalliola teaches “motion sensors integrated in WCD 100” that are “used to detect when WCD 100 is being moved,” as well as to detect “when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 84, 86. Although Patent Owner argues that Kalliola’s motion sensors do not detect rotation of the device, this is incorrect on the record as developed at trial. Kalliola teaches that the motion sensor may take “the form of a semiconductor gyroscope chip.” Id. ¶ 84. There is ample evidence that gyroscopes detect rotation. Ex. 1013, 38 (identifying as an “orientation sensor” a “[t]hree-axis gyro” and a “[d]ynamic [h]igh [r]ange [gyro]”); Ex. 1046, 49:18–20 (Dr. Feuerstein testifying that gyroscopes “can be used to detect angular velocity”); Ex. 1047 ¶ 47 (citing Ex. 1051, 170; Ex. 1053, 9) (Dr. Buehrer testifying that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that gyroscopes are well-known inertial sensors that specifically detect rotational motion”). Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence, Petitioner has shown that Kalliola teaches the “orientation sensor to detect rotation of the mobile communication device” of this limitation.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“whether Kalliola’s teaching of pausing and resuming its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, or Kalliola’s teaching of speeding up its DoA estimation based on detected rotational motion, amounts to determining direction based on rotation. Pet. 63–64; PO Resp. 25–27; Reply 24–27; Sur-Reply 11–14. On the record developed during trial, we are persuaded that the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Kalliola teaches determining direction based on rotation. First, Kalliola discloses “pausing a DoA estimation until the motion of the WCD is detected by the motion sensors,” then resuming “the updating of the DoA estimation” when motion is detected. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14, 84. Second, Kalliola discloses a “correction or compensation mode” that is “employed when user 110 moves WCD 100 too quickly for an accurate DoA estimation,” with this “increase[d] speed of the DoA estimation” being triggered by the “[i]ncreased activity detected by motion sensors in WCD 100.” Id. ¶ 86. As discussed above with respect to limitation 11(d), the detected motion that triggers either of these modes can be rotational motion of the WCD detected by a gyroscope.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,350,246 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,350,246 - Jumio Corporation v. Facetec, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00107 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barDecided for patent owner
“interest to this proceeding and is in privity with Petitioner and that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because it served iProov 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 285–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the challenged patent claims the benefit of applications filed after this date, the post-AIA version of §§ 102, 103 apply. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63). with a complaint for infringement of the ʼ606 patent more than one year before this Petition was filed. Prelim. Resp. 5–22. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 16–27. For the reasons we explained there, we do not agree that this Petition is not time-barred under 35 U.S.C. 315(b).” slip op. at 6
- Other 314aDecided for petitioner
“B. Discretionary Denial under § 314(a) Patent Owner argues the Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) in light of two co-pending district court cases. Prelim. Resp. 47–56. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 6–9. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on the related district court cases.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“C. Discretionary Denial under § 325(d) Patent Owner argues we should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because Petitioner’s asserted references are the same or substantively as those the Office previously considered during prosecution. Prelim. Resp. 22–36. We addressed this same issue in our institution decision in IPR2025-00106. See IPR2025-00106, Paper 17 at 9–16. For the same reasons we explained there, we decline exercising our discretion to deny institution under § 325(d).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“D. Claim Construction Neither party proposes an express construction for any claim terms. Pet. 5–6; see generally Prelim. Resp. We agree that no claim terms require express construction to determine whether to institute inter partes review. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,157,606
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.