• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because DiPerna964 and Strack do not teach or suggest the panic button readying itself to perform the claimed functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “After review of the ’404 patent’s description, we find no disclosure that pressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) as recited in limitation 1[d]. The closest descriptions we find to limitation 1[d] are that the safety switch readies the panic button to contact 911 (Ex. 1001, 6:59–62), that the panic button may be activated by pressing the panic button with another button (id., 3:59–67, and that the panic button may start a speech recognition process that can trigger the device (id., 7:61–62). Consequently, claim 1 is itself the best source for determining what the claim language means. We determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “ready itself” feature of claim 1 is that the panic button “prepares itself to be triggered to perform the panic button functions (1) and (2).” Since the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear to discern the meaning of the “ready itself” limitation, we do not resort to extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (explaining that extrinsic evidence is less significant than intrinsic evidence); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Court of Appeals gives primacy to intrinsic evidence and resorts to extrinsic evidence only if consistent with intrinsic evidence); Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Court of Appeals stating that its “decision rests solely on the intrinsic evidence”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, the ’353 application describes that moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button to contact 911, which is not the same as the panic button being activated to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) required by claim 1 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’353 application is unavailing. PO Resp. 5–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–21, 23, 25); PO Sur-Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–20, 24–25)). For example, while the ’353 application does mention voice activation with a codeword and activation by depressing of the panic button together with another button (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 17, 21, 24–25), it does not mention that depressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform recited functions (1) and (2). The application explains that “[t]he [panic] button can send a signal to a controller inside the device to activate [the code word activation] process” and “[t]he [panic] button can start the speech recognition process in one embodiment, to trigger the device.” Ex. 1006, 25. But that describes readying the device for activation by the code word, not readying the button to perform the recited functions. The ’353 application also mentions the word “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which does not appear to be related the readying of the panic button recited in claim 1. Ex. 1006, 15, 19–20. Petitioner has thus met its burden to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority.3 Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for limitation 1[d], which it has not done on this record. PO Resp. 5–8; PO Sur-Reply 2–3.” slip op. at 15

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

    “DiPerna964 discloses a separate “safety” switch that readies the panic button to contact 911 upon being pressed (Ex. 1028 ¶ 41), but there is no mention of pressing the panic button together with another button to cause the panic button to “ready itself” to perform panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit, as limitations 1[d] and 1[e] require. DiPerna964 mentions pressing two buttons together to activate the panic button (see, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 23–25, 27), but not to “ready itself” to perform recited functions (1) and (2). Petitioner relies on Strack’s triggering the collection of audio, video, and location data for transmission to a remote location as equivalent to a panic button readying itself to, when activated, perform the panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–88). We do not agree with Petitioner’s contention because Petitioner fails to explain how Strack’s button press that collects and then transmits audio, video, and location data would ready the panic button to perform recited functions (1) and (2). It appears that Strack’s button press readies the device, not the button, to perform the functions. As neither DiPerna964 nor Strack nor their combination teach or suggest limitations 1[d] and 1[e], we determine it is unnecessary to proceed further with the obviousness analysis. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2006) (stating that we consider motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success only “if all the elements of an invention are found in a combination of prior art references”)).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the educational level, technology, problems and solutions identified in the ’404 patent and prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Silicon Motion Inc. v. K.Mizra, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01241 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–2 and 4–15 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2, 4–7, and 9–15 are obvious over Johnson or Stubbs.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “determine whether to institute an inter partes review. An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (2020) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons provided below, and based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a related field, and 2-3 years of experience in memory system design,” or, alternatively, “a Master’s degree in one of those fields and 1-2 years of relevant experience.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 26–29). Patent Owner “does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so in the event that trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner asserts that “that no construction is necessary for any terms for the purposes of this Petition as the challenged claims are invalid under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner states that “the Board need not construe any claim term in a particular manner to arrive at the conclusion that the Petition is substantively deficient.” Prelim. Resp. 7. 5 At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner has not presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. In view of the parties’ positions, we determine that we need not expressly construe any terms for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “to combine Johnson and Moss is inadequate. See Prelim. Resp. 20–24. We tend to agree. In the “Motivation to Combine Johnson and Moss” section, the Petition first asserts that “Johnson and Moss are in the same field of endeavor,” which is insufficient without more to provide a motivation. See, e.g., Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 82 F.4th 1355, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Petition then asserts that “[t]o provide enhanced flexibility, [one of ordinary skill in the art] in possession of Johnson would look to Moss to incorporate a plurality of delay elements to the data strobe signal.” Pet. 22. This is not persuasive because (a) Petitioner argues that Johnson already provides a plurality of delay elements, (b) Petitioner fails to explain where or how additional delay elements from Moss would be added to Johnson, and (c) Petitioner fails to explain how or why the modification would “provide enhanced flexibility,” or even what “enhanced flexibility” might mean in 9 “a first sampling circuit to sample the first delayed data signal based on the strobe signal” 10 “a second sampling circuit to sample the second delayed data signal based on the received strobe signal” this context. Petitioner also argues that “Moss further discloses that the size of the data path – i.e. the number of data pins in each data path – is a design choice well within the knowledge and ability of a POSITA, and expressly recites examples of 4, 8, and 16-bit wide data paths.” Pet. 23. We agree that varying the width of the data path would have been within level of ordinary skill and would have depended on the particular application, but the Petition fails to explain how or why that would have made it obvious to incorporate various elements of Moss into Johnson.” slip op. at 19

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,111,608
• Silicon Motion Inc. v. K.Mizra LLC.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2025 · IPR2024-01240 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–19 based on all asserted challenges, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Meaney and Meaney-Greeff obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), 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 that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to all the challenged claims of the ’466 patent based on all the challenges presented.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or a related field as well as at least two years of academic or industry experience in design and implementation of high-speed digital communication systems.” Pet. 13. Petitioner further asserts that “[a]n individual with an advanced degree in a relevant field, such as computer or electrical engineering, would require less experience in the design and implementation of high-speed digital communication systems, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner “does not contest Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, but it reserves the right to do so if trial is instituted.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). That standard involves construing claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claims as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent. See id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–14 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate the termination circuitry disclosed in Greeff with the system of Meaney to achieve enhanced system performance and reliability.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002, app. A at 82). As support, Petitioner asserts that “Greeff’s termination circuitry ensures proper signal integrity and reduces reflections in high-speed data transmission systems.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 1:28–31, 4:10–12, 8:3–5; Ex. 1002, app. A at 82). Petitioner further asserts that “Meaney’s calibration techniques, when applied to the termination resistance and transistor drive strength of Greeff, would ensure that these parameters remain optimal throughout system operation.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, app. A at 82); see also id. at 54 (“A POSITA would have found it obvious to apply Meaney’s calibration process to Greeff’s termination circuitry in order to optimize the termination resistance and drive strength of the termination circuitry.”). Petitioner adds that “[a] POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Meaney and Greeff.” Id. at 54. According to Petitioner, “[t]he integration of Greeff’s termination circuitry into Meaney’s system would have been straightforward and cost-effective,” any “required modifications are minimal, and the results of the combination are predictable, given the complementary nature of the technologies.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, app. A at 82). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for this limitation. See Prelim. Resp. Based on Petitioner’s argument and evidence, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently for purposes of this Decision that its proposed combination of Meaney and Greeff teaches or suggests the recited “circuitry” of limitation 17a. We also are persuaded that Petitioner’s proffered reasoning for modifying Meaney’s system to include Greeff’s termination circuitry, namely, to ensure proper signal integrity and reduce reflections, is sufficient to support institution. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]here must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.”).” slip op. at 26

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,160,466
• Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01253 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  Instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–21, 23–25, 27–29, and 31–33 based on a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Eldering-I and Eldering-II.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “The CTPG states that “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.” CTPG 59. Patent Owner does not “clearly proffer any necessary stipulations” as the CTPG stresses. See id. at 61 (“If stating that issues are not material or in dispute, the patent owner should clearly proffer any necessary stipulations. For example, the patent owner may seek to avoid additional petitions by proffering a stipulation that certain claim limitations are not disputed or that certain references qualify as prior art.”).” slip op. at 7

  • Other 314aDecided for petitioner

    “The Director has broad authority to exercise discretion to deny a petition under § 314. However, Patent Owner does not assert that Petitioner is a real party in interest with United Patents or allege that Petitioner is in a special relationship with Unified Patents based on its membership status, with respect to the EPR. See Paper 11, 5; Ex. 2013, 8–12 (different IPR finding no special relationship between Hulu and Unified Patents); Fintiv, Paper 11 at 13–14 (“If a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant in an earlier court proceeding, the Board has weighed this fact against exercising discretion to deny institution under NHK.”). In addition, the EPR involves only independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 27 and a different combination of prior art. See Ex. 2009, 1, 6 (relying on Wu, Rosenberg, and Angel, or Wu Rosenberg, Eldering, and Engel). In general, “a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 311. Accordingly, we determine that the circumstances outlined do not tilt toward exercising discretion on this record to deny the Petition.” slip op. at 8

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “Petitioner is correct. As summarized above, Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor exercising discretion to deny the Petition so there is no need to address whether the merits are compelling. See Volvo Penta, Paper 15 at 4–5 (“On remand, if the Board determines that Fintiv factors 1–5 favor exercise of discretion to deny institution, the Board shall consider whether the record prior to institution demonstrates that the merits are compelling” (emphasis added)). In addition, as determined below, Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits with respect to at least one challenged claim. Therefore, Fintiv factor 6 favors not exercising discretion to deny institution. Based on the foregoing discussion, a holistic review of the record favors not exercising discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314 based on Fintiv.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,463,768
• Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2025 · IPR2024-01252 · APJ Karl D Easthom · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–12, 14–21, 23–25, 27–29, and 31–33 on the asserted obviousness ground over Wu and Doherty.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless 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.” For the reasons explained below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims and the grounds raised in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied

    “Petitioner is correct. As summarized above, Fintiv factors 1–5 do not favor exercising discretion to deny the Petition so there is no need to address whether the merits are compelling. See Volvo Penta, Paper 15 at 4–5 (“On remand, if the Board determines that Fintiv factors 1–5 favor exercise of discretion to deny institution, the Board shall consider whether the record prior to institution demonstrates that the merits are compelling” (emphasis added)). In addition, as determined below, Petitioner shows that there is a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits with respect to at least one challenged claim. Therefore, Fintiv factor 6 favors not exercising discretion to deny institution. Based on the foregoing discussion, a holistic review of the record favors not exercising discretion to deny institution. Accordingly, we decline to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314 based on Fintiv.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, Wu and Doherty are not cumulative to Knepper. As Petitioner argues, the Petition relies on Wu’s teachings regarding a digital recording/play back system allowing users to fast forward through or skip over advertisements during playback and Doherty’s teachings regarding rescheduling advertisements and other items of information (e.g., media content) in response to user input—neither set of teachings is present in Knepper. Reply 2.” slip op. at 45

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther

    “construction for “intersplicer” as “software that selects advertising content and controls insertion and conveyance of advertising content in media content.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57), 7:45–55, 15:4–18). The specification implies that the intersplicer is “application software” that may include an “‘intersplicer’ module.” Ex. 1001, 7:45–58. The module “select[s] . . . the ads to be shown” and controls the insertion and conveyance of ads and the application software “automatically edits the selected advertisements into the presentation stream.” See Pet. 5 (quoting Ex. 1001, 7:45–55; citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 23); see also Ex. 1001, code (57) (“The intersplicer combines the media files with the ad files by providing control signals to the media player, causing the media player to present the ad files with the selected media files.”). Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “intersplicer” at this stage in this proceeding. See generally Prelim. Resp.7 The preliminary record supports Petitioner’s proposed construction of an “intersplicer” for purposes of this Institution Decision.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,463,768
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01026 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 7, 10–17, 19–23, 25–27, and 30–36 are anticipated by Alden; claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, and 28–29, are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given, Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–36 of U.S. Patent 10,894,503 B2 are unpatentable.12 The results are summarized below:” slip op. at 47

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “While Alden’s Figure 5 shows a sectional view of a segmented-headlight embodiment, thus depicting a single line of LEDs, that does not restrict the embodiment to a one-dimensional array. Indeed, Alden’s disclosures discussed above contradict such a view, as do the disclosures regarding Figure 5 and other segmented-headlight embodiments. We credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony in this regard. Ex. 2041, 59:10–12 (“[I]t’s very clear we’re talking about a two-dimensional structure that is map of this set of slices in figure 5.”); accord id. at 56:25–60:18. The Figure 5 embodiment includes a switch array to control the individual lighting elements, with “[e]ach lighting element being independently controlled by a corresponding switch in an array of switches 115.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 29. The Figure 6 embodiment includes a face-on view of the headlight plainly showing a two-dimensional array, in addition to a sectional view similar to that of Figure 5. Id. at Fig. 6. And Alden describes that the Figure 6 embodiment uses a “switch array similar to 115 and the process previously described herein.” Id. ¶ 30. Considering Alden’s description of its sensing-and-control circuit in connection with Figure 3, which illustrates a two-dimensional array, and its description of Figure 5’s segmented headlight as working with that approach, we find that Alden’s LED-based segmented headlight is capable of selective illumination in two dimensions. See id. ¶¶ 27, 29, Figs. 3, 5.” slip op. at 17

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

    “The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2023-01034 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable: claims 1–8, 10–19, 21–30, 32, and 33 as obvious over Alden and Kobayashi; claims 9, 20, and 31 as obvious over Alden, Beam, and Kobayashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision and refer to people with that skill as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 6

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

    “B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties agree that no express claim construction is required at this stage. Pet. 8; PO Resp. 7. We agree with the parties and therefore do not further construe the claims for this decision. 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 7

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

    “relies on Kobayashi, submitting that it would have been obvious to “use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Pet. 23–24 (quoting Ex. 1005 ¶ 36). Petitioner reasons that Alden discloses detecting road curvature through roadside reflectors and steering-wheel sensors, and Kobayashi discloses an additional way to detect road curvature. Id. at 24. Petitioner continues that, because Kobayashi discloses using map data to control vehicle headlights, skilled artisans would have had reason to adopt its teachings in Alden’s system “to maximize successful detection in different environments.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Petitioner relies on Kobayashi also for determining a light change to increase light in the direction of road curvature and shaping light based on the road curvature. Id. at 27. Finally, Petitioner relies on Kobayashi for the requirement to control the light sources both based on the determined light change and also prior to the vehicle reaching the road curvature. Id. at 30.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,208,029 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,208,029
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2023-01040 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 48–87 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates most challenged claims, while claims 49 and 51 are obvious over Alden and Beam, and claims 52, 60, 68, 76, and 84 over Alden and Kobayashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “enablement for Alden’s system detecting road curves. Pet. Reply 21. As Petitioner points out, Alden uses both intensity and a detected object’s location (including distance) to inform its response. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Petitioner’s expert testifies that the same physical system used to accommodate oncoming vehicles could be used to detect roadside reflectors and direct light into road curves. Ex. 2041, 78:16–80:24. Further, Petitioner’s expert testifies that skilled artisans would adjust the intensity and distance thresholds to distinguish roadside reflectors from oncoming vehicles. IPR2023-01039, Ex. 1003 ¶ 150. Based on Alden’s disclosures, we credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that Alden’s system would detect and accommodate road curvatures as claimed by the ’551 patent. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–134. Although Patent Owner argues that Alden’s system could not do so while also accommodating oncoming vehicles, that position is based on the argument that “the system can’t tell the difference between signs and headlights.” PO Surreply 21–23. Patent Owner contends that “detected intensity is a function of both distance and emission intensity” so a threshold couldn’t distinguish headlights from signs. Id. at 24–25. That position ignores that Alden uses triangulation to calculate each object’s distance, as discussed, which would allow it to distinguish different types of objects using an intensity threshold. We agree with Petitioner’s expert that Alden’s system can distinguish the two, as discussed.” slip op. at 33

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

    “sufficiently clear to impart a requirement on “classifying” such that a system must choose from multiple classes or types of objects. The parties do not appear to dispute that “classifying the object” includes arranging or grouping the object according to some system or principle. Thus, there is no need to further construe the claims for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “We agree with Petitioner. Alden’s system does not simply dim its headlights where it detects spots of light. Rather, it performs a multistep process in which those spots are detected, analyzed with triangulation to determine distance, and then used to determine dimming zones. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 27–28. Alden discloses that its sensor “detects the two headlights” of an oncoming vehicle when “[e]lectrons corresponding to the position and intensity of light are categorized by a logic and CPU 71 and stored in a memory 72.” Id. ¶ 27. Petitioner’s expert noted that Alden’s description “move[s] from lights – thresholding lights to objects, and then calculate[s] distance of each thresholding object using triangulation.” Ex. 2041, 109:23–110:2. That testimony supports our view that Alden first detects lights, uses those detected lights to identify and classify an oncoming car, then dims the headlight output to prevent glare. Alden’s dimming decision particularly indicates that it classifies pairs of detected headlights as oncoming vehicles. The CPU makes “assumptions about the space that may potentially be occupied by the driver of the sensed vehicle” and identifies an area of the segmented headlight to dim that is “significantly larger than the headlight dots that were initially received.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. Patent Owner agrees that Alden dims “selected surrounding sectors” around detected light (PO Resp. 30), and the way Alden selects those sectors indicates that it identifies vehicles. It does not simply expand an area around each detected light; it dims an area to encompass the driver of the identified vehicle. Ex. 1005 ¶ 27, Fig. 3. By treating a pair of corresponding detected lights collectively for dimming, Alden indicates that it classifies pairs of detected lights as vehicles.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7

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

    “The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551

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.