- PTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00340 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 across all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Barnard renders at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“At this stage of the proceeding, we disagree with Patent Owner’s construction that requires “distinguishing among different types of targets” in order to obtain “target specific feature information” because claim 1 does not recite such a limitation. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning “requires target specific feature information for distinguishing specific targets from background clutter, not other targets.” Reply 2. We note that claim 1 does not require distinguishing between different targets nor does it include any recitation directed to a particular “learning process (e.g., Generalized Hebbian Analysis),” as Patent Owner implies. Sur-reply 2. We also agree with Petitioner that the doctrine of claim differentiation supports Petitioner’s construction because claim 7 adds a limitation not present in claim 1 by reciting “distinguish[ing] two target classes or a plurality of target classes from one another.” Ex. 1001, 12:28–30. Moreover, the Specification contemplates selecting target specific feature information to distinguish specific targets from background clutter without distinguishing among different types of targets because the Specification explains that the inventor tested the preferred classification system using target objects “of several different types” such that “the preferred embodiment needed to find receptive fields common to all types.” Id. at 9:41–48 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we find Petitioner’s proposed construction of “target specific feature information to distinguish specific targets from background clutter” as having its plain and ordinary meaning to be reasonable and consistent with the intrinsic record. Thus, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. On this limited record, and at this early stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of “target specific feature information to distinguish specific targets from background clutter.” We encourage the parties to further develop this argument (such as to the extent it would differentiate the prior art) and their positions at trial.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“4. Conclusion for Claim 1 After reviewing Petitioner’s assertions with respect to claim 1 and the supporting evidence (as summarized above), we determine that Petitioner has shown, sufficiently at this stage, that Barnard teaches all the limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 12–34. We therefore determine that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over Barnard. We have also reviewed the arguments and evidence of record addressing claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 in Ground 1, and similarly find that for purposes of institution, Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Barnard would have rendered these claims obvious. See Pet. 34–39. On this basis, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims on all grounds in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc., 584 U.S. at 368; 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“On this record, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Barnard teaches using “target specific feature information” to distinguish specific targets from background clutter, as required by claim 1. See Pet. 16–32. As set forth above, on the current record we do not construe the claim limitation reciting “target specific feature information to distinguish specific targets from background clutter” to require “distinguishing among different types of targets based on tailored feature selection,” as Patent Owner suggests. Prelim. Resp. 27. Instead, we agree with Petitioner that the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim limitation simply “requires target specific feature information for distinguishing specific targets from background clutter, not other targets.” Reply 2; Section II.C.1. Based on the current record, and consistent with this understanding, we find Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Barnard uses various calculated data statistics to select a set of features and an associated target detection threshold in order to distinguish specific targets from background clutter. See Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex.1003 ¶¶ 65–68 (citing to Ex. 1005, 2:30–36, 5:36–49, 6:62–68)). Petitioner explains that Barnard “discard[s] or exclude[es] features that have a statistical distribution width exceeding a predetermined amount,” and as such, “Barnard selects features (i.e., the remaining features not excluded) that are used to distinguish specific targets from background clutter.” Id. at 17 (citing Ex.1005, 2:28–39; Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Patent Owner argues that “[a]t best, Barnard generically applies the same set of features to all potential targets, and then filters out those deemed unreliable due to statistical variance,” and relying on the Declaration testimony of Dr. Majumder, contends that “[t]his is not the same as selecting features based on their discriminative power for specific target classes, as required by the claims.” Prelim. Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2007 ¶ 71); see also id. at 25 (“The reference makes no distinction between different types of targets and does not describe using different feature sets or decision boundaries tailored to particular target classes.”), 30 (“Petitioner’s attempt to equate Barnard’s one size-fits-all filtering with the claim’s target-specific discrimination reflects a misunderstanding of both the reference and the invention.”). However, on the current record, Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive at least because it is based on an overly restrictive construction of the limitation “target specific feature information to distinguish specific targets from background clutter.” As discussed above, claim 1 does not require distinguishing between different targets or between specific target classes. See Section II.C.1. Although Patent Owner argues that “there is no mention of ‘target” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,894,639 - PTAB · Aug 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00343 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6 and 8–13 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“and 4) does not address Petitioner’s first two arguments and evidence, which, on this record, appear to show that Bucknell’s prioritized queue length is based on buffered data in either, or both, of a first and second iteration. Therefore, at this stage of the proceeding, we need not reach Patent Owner’s assertions as to the third alternative argument and evidence Petitioner provides, namely the combination of examples 2), 3), and 4). For completeness, however, we acknowledge that Bucknell does not expressly combine examples 2), 3), and 4), mainly because example 4) only refers back to example 2). However, we note that from a plain reading of Bucknell’s written description it may not be a significant leap to understand that the disclosed combination of examples 2) and 4), with first and second portions 90 and 95 populated in reverse order as taught in example 4), that this combination could be subsequently modified by example 3) to provide a “second iteration . . . based on buffered data.” Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–27. In other words, on the current record it is not clear why “the unused resource” of Bucknell’s second portion 95 cannot also “be made available,” to the first portion 90 if the order was simply reversed per the combination of examples 2) and 4). 3. Conclusion as to Claim 1 In summary, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence sufficient to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Eckert in view of Bucknell and Lohr-1. On the current record, we find that Bucknell discloses “a first iteration” based on receiving the priority values for logical channels associated with the MAC-d flows. Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. And, as discussed above, Bucknell’s described “priorities,” are plural, just like the claimed “received parameters.” Ex. 1001, 14:11; Ex. 1006 ¶ 26. In on a priority.” See Ex. 1001, 13:57–14:16. As to the issue of whether the Petition provides sufficient explanation or motivation to combine Bucknell’s examples 2), 3), and 4), which is an alternative argument to Petitioner’s other mappings for limitation [1.9] which we find sufficient for institution, we leave this alternative mapping issue for development at trial. See Pet. 55 (Petitioner explaining that “Bucknell describes additional ways that limitation [1.9] is disclosed, based on the teachings of examples 2 and 4 (discussed previously) in view of example 3.”).” slip op. at 27
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner points out that in IPR2022-01127 the Board “preliminarily determined that a subset of the plurality of radio bearers” means “less than all of the plurality of radio bearers.” Pet 12 (citing Ex. 1019, 18–19). Petitioner explains that, in the present proceeding, it has applied “the prior art in accordance with that construction; however, in view of the asserted grounds, no claim term requires express construction to find the Challenged Claims unpatentable.” Id. (citing Nidec 868 F.3d 1017). Patent Owner neither disputes the prior construction of “a subset of radio bearers,” nor offers additional constructions. To the extent necessary, and in accordance with our prior determination, we construe “a subset of the plurality of radio bearers” to mean “less than all of the plurality of radio bearers.” At this early stage of the proceeding, no claim terms are disputed and we need not construe any other terms for purposes of institution.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not expressly dispute Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not disputed and is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’138 patent and the asserted prior art references. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,292,138 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00388 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Wang and Wang with AESO did not establish the claimed analysis, and Cooley did not disclose reducing current power consumption.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the claims require a decision engine to perform those elements.” Tr. 48:17– 20. In light of this, we fail to understand the basis for Patent Owner’s objection to the characterization of the level of ordinary skill involving experience with “intelligent” techniques or devices that control grid electricity. We determine that Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). We, therefore, apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner (PO Resp. 12, 49–50) points to the Specification’s list of “[e]xamples of power reduction actions.” Ex. 1001, 8:47–63. Patent Owner asserts that the list includes numerous examples of power reductions that occur in the present and one that takes place in the future—namely, “scheduling nonessential operations at a different time (e.g., nonessential software or hardware upgrades).” Ex. 1001, 8:61–62 (cited at PO Resp. 12, 50). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention (PO Resp. 12) that the applicant, by including the term “current” in the claims, intentionally narrowed the claims to power consumption reductions that occur temporally in the present, rather than those that occur in the future. See Pet. Reply 6–7 (Petitioner asserting that Patent Owner’s position is “inconsistent with the specification’s examples,” but then arguing that the Specification does not support that position rather than pointing to any purported inconsistencies). Because the independent claims recite the term “current,” construing the term in the temporal sense is not, as Petitioner argues, importing into the claims an example from the Specification. See Pet. Reply 8.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Given the interchangeable nature taught for various features of Wang’s embodiments, it would have been a routine and obvious matter for a POSA to combine aspects from Wang’s various embodiments (e.g., data acquisition, internal hardware, data analysis performed by the UMC receiver 400 and/or the display 200). Moreover, many of Wang’s embodiments–particularly of specific smart appliance types– include common components, thus further confirming combinability of aspects of the disclosed embodiments. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining features of the embodiments together. Id. at 77–78 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 201–203). We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightNot shown unpatentable
“We determine that these reasons are inadequate and too generic to satisfy Petitioner’s burden as they lack a clear explanation of what and how “aspects from Wang’s various embodiments” are proposed to be combined along with reasoning specific to that proposal. Petitioner, for example, does not explain adequately or persuasively why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a display that purportedly receives and analyzes data to a “smart appliance,” when that appliance already has an application processor that purportedly receives and analyzes the same data. It is not enough for Petitioner to allege that all of the elements of the challenged claims can be found somewhere in the various embodiments of Wang; Petitioner must also show that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to combine the elements in the manner as arranged in the challenged claims. See KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”). We find Petitioner has not shown an adequate reason to combine embodiments.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 8,291,243 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,291,243 - Tesla, Inc. v. Graphite Charging Company, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00387 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 4–8, 11–15, and 18–20 over Kimura; claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 16 over Kimura and Hotta; claims 3, 10, and 17 over Kimura and King.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We understand Petitioner’s phrase “experience working on software and/or hardware used to manage charging processes for electric vehicles” to encompass data processing systems similar to that proposed by Patent Owner, but with a slightly narrower area of application. We determine that Petitioner’s definition, as set out in the block quote above, is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For the purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition, as block quoted above, of the person of ordinary skill in the art. We note, however, that were we to adopt Patent Owner’s assessment, the outcome of this Decision would be the same. Cf. Pet. Reply 15 (Petitioner asserting that “[Patent Owner] takes issue with the level of ordinary skill in the art . . ., but never argues that the level impacts how the Board should understand the arguments. Petitioner’s positions apply regardless.”).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“We are not persuaded that the Specification evidences a clear intent by the patentees to redefine (either explicitly or by implication) or to otherwise narrow the scope of the claim terms “request” and “response,” as Patent Owner urges. The statements in the Specification upon which Patent Owner relies are referring to “Request 414” and “Response 418.” See PO Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 12:3–4, 12:12–14). As indicated by the reference numbers, the Specification is discussing a specific request and a specific response in the context of Figure 4, which is described as depicting “an illustrative embodiment.” See Ex. 1001, 10:51–53 (“FIG. 4 is a system for managing a charging process of an electric vehicle in accordance with an illustrative embodiment.”), 12:1–19, Fig. 4. By stressing the illustrative nature of the embodiment of Figure 4, the patentees indicated an intent for it to not be limiting. See also Ex. 1001, 15:44–47 (the Specification stating: “The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed.”); Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1373 (“[T]hose terms [including, datalink 39] are used synonymously only in describing a particular numbered component in the figure depicting the preferred embodiment, and never in describing the datalink of the invention generally.”). At oral argument, Patent Owner’s counsel, relying on the opinion of Dr. Cameron, argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art would “read the definition without the reference numbers.” Tr. 43:23–44:9. Thus, we understand Patent Owner to argue that the Specification provides an explicit definition when one reads out a portion of the Specification—converting, for example, “Request 414 is a message” to “Request is a message.” This is not persuasive as it involves editing the evidence to conform to Patent Owner’s argument, rather than an argument supported by the Specification as written by the patentees. Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that clearly defines “request” and “response” generally or, for example, uses phrasing implying that those terms are defined for “the present invention.” See, e.g., Hill-Rom Services, Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (“For example, we have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as “the present invention requires . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present invention are . . . .’”); Astrazeneca, 384 F.3d at 1339 (discussing defining by implication and determining that the “specification’s statement that ‘[t]he solubilizers suitable according to the invention are defined below’ provides a strong signal of lexicography.”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We fail to discern a clear disparagement of the use of signals in the Specification that would justify excluding signals from the scope of the claimed invention. The Specification does not mention in these excerpts the use of signals, and thus does not characterize “using signals as less ‘complete, flexible, and interoperable,’” as Patent Owner impliedly argues. PO Sur-reply 11. The Specification characterizes “the most rudimentary charging scenarios” as including situations such as a car owner merely plugging the electric vehicle into a common electric outlet at the owner’s house, and suggests that illustrative embodiments are an improvement in that they apply to “much broader and more complex sets of circumstances than this simple scenario.” See Ex. 1001, 6:60–7:2. An example of a “complex transaction[]” is the car owner using a charging station located away from the owner’s house and being required to pay for the charge. See id. at 7:2– 11. To the extent there is any disparagement, it is merely of the simple scenario of the owner plugging the car into the standard household outlet. Cf. Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ([T]his court also recognizes that disparaging comments alone do not necessarily show a manifest or express disavowal of the criticized subject matter.”). Additionally, Patent Owner does not direct us to any portion of the Specification that indicates, for example, that the use of messages is a very important feature of the claimed invention and that alternatives (e.g., signals) are disparaged. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d at 1372 (citing Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L., 450 F.3d at 1354–55); see id. at 1377 (holding that there is no disavowal or lexicography where “[t]here is no language that extolls the virtues of interfaces that both send and receive messages or language that disparages interfaces that only send messages.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Sur-reply 15 (citing Ex. 1021, 161:5–21). Patent Owner overstates that testimony, which is that “[t]here’s actually disincentive for using messages all together.” Ex. 1021, 161:17–18. Regardless, even if correct, the existence of some disincentives does not necessarily negate a motivation to make the proposed combination. Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.”). We find that Petitioner’s assertion—that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by a desire to assure a safe and commercially-desirable system (Pet. 53)—to have rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner argues that Dr. Cameron “explained [that] . . . it would not be simple because Hotta uses two-stage charging subroutines.” PO Sur-reply 16 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 118). We disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Cameron’s testimony. The cited paragraph 118 states that Hotta’s figures depict “two-stage charging subroutines different from both the ’391 patent and Kimura,” and that there are “fundamental differences.” Ex. 2005 ¶ 118. Dr. Cameron does not go so far as to opine that combining the teachings as Petitioner’s proposes would not be considered simple by a person of ordinary skill in the art. See id.; see also Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Leapfrog presents no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in this type of device was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.”). Dr. MacCarley, on the other hand, credibly testifies that “making use of Hotta’s command keys in Kimura’s system . . . would have been a simple substitution of one known element (Kimura’s lightly- described main switch) for another known element (Hotta’s command keys) to achieve predictable results (a charging process that can be stopped by pressing Hotta’s charging stop command key . . .).” Ex. 1009 ¶ 147. We credit Dr. MacCarley’s testimony over that of Dr. Cameron’s because it is consistent with a sufficiently reasoned rationale of a simple substitution and is supported by the references.” slip op. at 48
Patent outcomesUS 8,103,391 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,103,391 - Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00226 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–5, 7, and 9 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Moskowitz and Steffee render at least one challenged claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and “the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which that subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness when presented. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). In analyzing the obviousness of a combination of prior art elements, it can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted one of skill in the art “to combine . . . known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. A precise teaching directed to the specific subject matter of a challenged claim is not necessary to establish obviousness. Id. Rather, “any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420. Accordingly, a party who petitions the Board for a determination of unpatentability based on obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Under that standard, the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning the term would have had to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, in the context of the entire patent including the specification. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“according to what Petitioner purports to be Patent Owner’s “apparent construction” is relevant to only Petitioner’s challenge based on Moskowitz and the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (Ground 1). Here, Petitioner acknowledges that “even if a ‘curved’ channel has a narrower meaning requiring the channel to follow a curved path (instead of the straight path identified in the accused products), Petitioner demonstrates that the challenged claims are also unpatentable over at least Grounds 2 and 3.” Pet. 24–25. For purposes of this decision, we find Petitioner’s alternative construction to be consistent with the ’385 patent’s disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 15:49–53 (“The anchoring member is advanced through the curved fusion member channel and into the vertebral body. As the fusion member channel is curved, the path that the anchoring member travels is also curved.”). We also find it to be consistent with the construction Petitioner advances in the related litigation. See Ex. 1029, 1 (Petitioner preliminarily construing “curved channel” to mean “channel that has a curved path”). However, because construing “curved,” as it appears in the term “curved channel,” is not necessary to determine whether Petitioner has made a sufficient showing to support institution, we determine that an express interpretation of this term is not needed at this stage of the proceeding. 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)). On this limited record, and at this early stage of the proceeding, the Board has not made a final determination on the construction of “curved,” as it appears in the term “curved channel.” The parties should consider developing this issue further during trial.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“a) Motivation to Combine Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to use Steffee’s curved anchors with Moskowitz’s screw box to minimize potential migration of the screw box after implantation.” Pet. 84 (citing id. at 88–90). According to Petitioner, “Steffee taught that forces tending to cause sagittal or lateral movement of the fastener (and thereby migration of the implant) can be minimized or eliminated by using a curved fastener that increases the entry angle of the fastener to near-perpendicular.” Id. at 88. Thus, Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to use Steffee’s curved anchors with Moskowitz’s screw box to lower the forces (acting through Moskowitz’s existing screws) that tended to cause migration of fusion implants.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 169). Petitioner also points out that “Moskowitz’s anchors are threaded screws” (Pet. 89 (citing id. at 30–48)), and Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that such screws could strip (e.g., due to misalignment or over-torquing), which would reduce the stability of engagement between the fusion member and vertebrae. Ex. 1002 ¶ 170. Because the fasteners in Steffee do not contain threads, and further contained barbs to prevent the fastener from backing out (Ex. 1005, 2:61–68), a POSA would have understood that such fasteners would not be subject to such stripping. Ex. 1002 ¶ 170. Therefore, a POSA would have been motivated to use similar curved fasteners having barbs to eliminate the risk of stripping inherent when using Moskowitz’s screws. Id. Pet. 89. In addition, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “had a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification because it would only require the use of known machining techniques, and because the use of both curved anchors and curved channels had already been shown successful in spinal implants.” Id. at 84. Petitioner provides several reasons to support its contention. See id. at 90–91.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,460,385 - Globus Medical, Inc. v. Spinelogik, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00225 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–6, 11, 12, and 15–17 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Blain anticipates or renders at least one claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least [one] of the claims challenged in the petition.”” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“1. Anticipation A prior art reference can only anticipate a claim if it discloses all the claimed limitations “arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.” Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, 683 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “However, a reference can anticipate a claim” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Alternatively, to the extent Blain may not disclose that its instrument guide 14 “extend[s] outside a patient’s body to a medical practitioner,” Petitioner argues that it would have “been obvious based on common sense and the general knowledge of POSAs to make the length of the shaft of instrument guide 14 sufficiently long so that the physician would not have to stick his or her hand inside the incision location to insert the implant between the vertebrae.” Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 123). According to Petitioner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such a configuration to “provid[e] the known benefit of allowing the physician to maneuver and manipulate the delivery tool without having to insert his or her hand into the patient’s body to deliver and position the implant.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 124). And, relying on the declaration testimony of Mr. Culbert, Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have “had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the instrument guide 14 such that its handle 20 and shaft 22 extends outside the patient’s body, as this involved nothing more than lengthening the proximal shaft 22A and/or distal shaft 22B.” Id. at 54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 126); see also Ex. 1004, 5:4–6; Ex. 1005 ¶ 21 (Blain disclosing that “the relative lengths between the proximal shaft 22A and the distal shaft 22B can vary”).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage of the proceeding, however, we determine that no terms require explicit construction to resolve the issues presented by the arguments and evidence of record to reach a decision on institution. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,730,805 - PTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00222 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–16, and 19 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“relevant time would have had a “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in digital imaging systems.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–18). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contends that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in digital imaging.” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 82). For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. However, we note Patent Owner’s proposed characterization of a skilled artisan is not meaningfully different than the one proposed by Petitioner. Because we find the parties’ characterizations to be consistent with the ’158 patent and the asserted prior art, our analysis below applies Petitioner’s characterization for the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Pet. 8; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 2009 ¶ 34); see id. at 23–29 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43–45, 1:52–53, 1:58–2:5, 2:34–47, 3:47– 57, 4:3–6, 5:3–15; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 74–81; Ex. 1015, 48; Ex. 1030, 150–151, 153, 515–517; Ex. 2011, 267–269; Ex. 2012, 2–3; Ex. 2015, 7:55–8:11, Fig. 5). At this stage of the proceeding, however, we decline to read into the accepted District Court construction of “integration time” the additional negative limitation that Patent Owner proposes––i.e., the term “scene” excludes a photograph or still image. This is an issue that warrants a more fully developed record by both parties. For now, even without having the benefit of Petitioner’s position on this issue, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would be successful in refuting Patent Owner’s proposed negative limitation. This is because the ’158 patent makes clear that the invention is intended to address “a need for a digital camera in which the effective single-frame dynamic exposure range is expanded” to accommodate situations wherein a scene may include “an indoor room with a window view of the outdoors, an outdoor scene with mixed shadows and bright sunshine, and evening or night scenes combining artificial lighting and shadows.” Ex. 1001, 1:43–49, 2:28–42, 3:39–41. The ’158 patent explains that “[i]mage capture by the camera is performed using multiple camera channels, and each camera channel is controlled during a frame under an independent integration time.” Id. at 3:47–50 (emphasis added). The ’158 patent states further that its “digital camera systems, through the use of multiple integration times, enable formation of an image having a wide dynamic range by combining the data from all camera channels to form a composite single frame.” Id. at 3:28–61 (emphasis added). Still further, the ’158 patent states for one exemplary embodiment that “[t]he integration time of at least one channel is controlled relative to the integration time of at least one other channel so that an image formed by combining data of a frame received simultaneously from the channels has a relatively large dynamic range.” Id. at 5:6–11 (emphasis added). Rather than supporting Patent Owner’s contention that the meaning of the term “integration time” excludes a photograph or still image, the above illustrative teachings from the ’158 patent establish at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would succeed in establishing that “integration time,” and the term “scene” more particularly, encompasses the time the image sensor collects and integrates signals for a photograph or still image. As Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, the ordinary meaning of “scene” encompasses a “shot,” as well as, a “frame” (Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2011, 267–269)) and, as such, it would be counterintuitive to adopt an interpretation of “integration time” that excludes the very parts that make up a scene. Additionally, dependent claim 2 suggests that “integration time” encompasses a frame of a scene because it recites, “[t]he device of claim 1,” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“demonstrated sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood it would be successful in establishing Matsushima discloses or renders obvious limitation 1.3. Petitioner’s evidence shows that Matsushima discloses “two independent imaging systems” controlled by CPU 30 that each form an image on the light-receiving surfaces of CCD sensors 18A and 18B via their respective imaging optics 14A and 14B. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 17, 28 (emphasis added). In that configuration, Matsushima teaches that CCD sensors 18A and 18B each has an associated CCD drive circuit 20A and 20B that apply CCD drive pulses to retrieve the accumulated signal charges of their respective CCD sensors. Id. ¶ 23. Additionally, Matsushima teaches that CCD sensors 18A and 18B each has an “electronic shutter function that controls the accumulation time (shutter speed) of the charge accumulated by each sensor via shutter gate pulses” and that the shutter speed is determined based on integration of the Red, Green, and Blue signals in a single frame by the integration circuit 60A and 60B. Id. ¶¶ 24, 31, 34–35. Patent Owner notably does not dispute Petitioner’s cited evidence shows Matsushima discloses a processing component configured to control the integration time for CCD sensors 18A and 18B. See Prelim. Resp. 34– 50. Instead, despite Matsushima’s teaching that its imaging systems are independent, Patent Owner argues that Matsushima does not disclose independently controlling the integration time for CCD sensors 18A and 18B. Id. This is so, according to Patent Owner, because Matsushima describes operating CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B synchronously and describes using a single, common shutter speed for each of CCD sensors 18A and 18B. Id. at 35–38 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 17, 23, 27, 31, 34–35; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 88–92). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument raises genuine issues of disputed fact that would be best resolved on a fully developed record, rather than undermining the reasonable likelihood of success of Petitioner’s contention. In particular, going forward, the record would benefit from the parties addressing the issue raised by Patent Owner regarding whether Matsushima discloses to a skilled artisan individually controlling the shutter speed of each CCD sensor 18A and 18B. For example, although Patent Owner notes that Matsushima suggests an embodiment that may use a single, common shutter speed value and an intention for each circuit to be driven synchronously, it is unclear why those facts demonstrate Matsushima fails to suggest individually controlling the integration time of the disclosed independent imaging systems. To the extent Patent Owner is suggesting that limitation 1.3 does not encompass individually controlling the integration time of CCDs sensor 18A and 18B to operate synchronously with a single, common shutter speed value, Patent Owner should explain how the intrinsic record of the ’158 patent and the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the invention supports that position. Nevertheless, at this time and on this record, we determine there is a reasonable likelihood of success that Matsushima renders unpatentable claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13–16, and 19.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,158 - Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00144 · APJ Michael J Fitzpatrick · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because neither obviousness ground showed a reasonable likelihood of establishing claims 1–20 were unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“III. CONCLUSION The Petition fails to show there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Accordingly, we deny the Petition. IV. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 23
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“claim 15). We agree that the Specification supports Patent Owner’s construction. Although Petitioner bases its construction on extrinsic evidence, Petitioner argues that its construction “is consistent with” the intrinsic evidence, which, according to Petitioner, “indicates a sole is optional.” Pet. 31. A sole is optional, Petitioner argues, because the Abstract of the ’511 patent states that “[t]he footwear may include an upper and a sole structure.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, Abstr. (Petitioner’s emphasis)). We are not persuaded. Petitioner reads too much into the sentence it quotes from the Abstract and its use of the word “may.” Indeed, by Petitioner’s logic, both the upper and the sole structure would be optional and footwear would lack any required structure. Petitioner also argues that “[o]ther intrinsic evidence” supports its construction. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1053, 4:55–58; Ex. 1002 ¶92). The alleged intrinsic evidence, however, is an unrelated patent, US 2,675,631, which purportedly was cited during the prosecution of the ’511 patent. Id. This argument is undeveloped by Petitioner. First, Petitioner fails to substantiate that US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history, merely asserting it as fact without pointing to supporting evidence. See id. (no citation to the prosecution history provided). Further, even assuming US 2,675,631 is cited in the prosecution history of the ’511 patent and thus part of the intrinsic evidence,8 Petitioner fails to show that it is probative of 8 The Federal Circuit has held that “[t]he prosecution history, which we have designated as part of the ‘intrinsic evidence,’ consists of the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (emphasis added). what the inventors of the ’511 patent meant by “article of footwear.” Petitioner points out that the inventor of US 2,675,631 considers “knitted footwear” as encompassing “hose, golf hose, three-quarter hose, half-hose and socks” but does not explain why such meaning should be incorporated into the ’511 patent. Ex. 1053, 4:55–58 (partly quoted at Pet. 31–32). US 2,675,631 is titled “Footwear Article of The Slipper-Sock Type.” Ex. 1053, Title. As is evidently clear from the specifications of both patents, the ’511 patent and US 2,675,631 are directed to different types of footwear within the broader (dictionary) definition cited by Petitioner. Ex. 1022, 67, 88. Patent Owner also proffers testimony from Dr. Pastore that a person” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner
“We construe the preambles of claims 1 and 15 to be limiting, as guided by case law. It is clear that the preambles are being used to help define the invention, i.e., an upper for an article of footwear in the case of claim 1 and an article of footwear having an upper in the case of claim 15. See Bell Communications Research Inc. v. Vitalink Commcations Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it. In other words, when the claim drafter chooses to use both the preamble and the body to define the subject matter of the claimed invention, the invention so defined, and not some other, is the 9 Claim 15 is similar to claim 1, and, in challenging claim 1, Petitioner merely refers back to and relies exclusively on its analysis for claim 1. See Pet. 84 (Ground 1), 124–125 (Ground 2). Thus, although we may we discuss claim 1 alone at times, our analysis applies equally to claim 15. one the patent protects.”). Moreover, the bodies of both claims recite “the upper” which, in the case of claim 1, derives its antecedent basis directly from the preamble and, in the case of claim 15, relies on the preamble’s article of footwear which is recited as comprising an upper. See Eaton Corp. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 323 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“When limitations in the body of the claim rely upon and derive antecedent basis from the preamble, then the preamble may act as a necessary component of the claimed invention.”).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“However, it is not enough that Clark discloses a sole. See KSR Int'l, 550 U.S. at 418 (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.”). Petitioner must show that it would have been obvious to modify Cusinato to include a sole. Id. (“[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.”); see also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). On this aspect, Petitioner fails. The Petition summarily states that “a POSITA would consider it obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form” but – as noted by Patent Owner – the Petition does not explain why. Pet. 51; see Prelim. Resp. 35 (“The Petition is silent with respect to any alleged motivation.”). Dr. Adanur’s testimony does not add much. He summarily opines that “it would be obvious to add a sole to Cusinato’s ‘boot-like’ form to provide cushioning and protection.” Ex. 1002 ¶160.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,918,511 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01231 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable under §103; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the cited combinations do not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedMixed
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251 - Charter Communications, Inc. / Altice USA, Inc. v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-01262 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 22–26 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not teach or justify the claimed server-side command conversion.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the ’251 patent would have had: (1) the equivalent of a four-year, B.S. degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering or an equivalent field; (2) approximately two years of professional experience with Internet-based video delivery systems; and (3) working proficiency with network architecture, including Internet-hosted server-client systems, and with computer programming. PO Resp. 21 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶¶ 24–25). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Wicker, testifies that the parties’ definitions are only “slightly different,” and that if Dr. Wicker were to adopt Petitioner’s definition, that would not change any of his opinions. Ex. 2025 ¶ 24. Because the parties’ definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art only “slightly differ,” we accept the assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’251 patent and the asserted prior art. Regardless of which definition is applied, our analysis and decision would not change.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Both parties propose construing the claim term “media player” because it was construed in a related inter partes review proceeding as well as in a district court case. Pet. 19; PO Resp. 21. According to Patent Owner, construing “media player” to mean “software for playing media” would be consistent with the construction applied in both related proceedings. PO Resp. 21. Petitioner agrees, noting that the term “media player” “‘refers to software and not to a hardware device.’” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1164, 13). player” used by both parties, and we need not engage in any further claim construction because there are no claim construction disputes that bear on the issues before us. 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))). D. Alleged Obviousness of Claims 1–26 in View of Danciu and Mahajan or” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“attempts to extrapolate Mahajan’s specific teachings and specific architecture into a general principle such that specific commands are converted to universal commands and then universal commands are converted to specific commands regardless of the location of the process within a distributed system. See Tr. 14:5–11. Rather, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s extrapolation arguments are unsupported by Mahajan. We understand Petitioner argues that Mahajan’s “distributed computing environments” would have rendered it obvious to alter the location where command conversions occur. Pet. 41; Reply 10–11, 14. Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedOther
“Mr. Lett testifies that Mahajan “allows for its server media abstraction module to be located in a processing device that may not typically be labeled a ‘server,’ such as remote control 14 of Danciu.” Ex. 1198 ¶ 9 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶ 162; Ex. 1114 ¶ 17). Yet, both Petitioner and Mr. Lett fail to explain how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would take the distributed nature allowed by Mahajan and completely flip its teachings to put a client or remote device process on a server device. Mr. Lett further fails to explain how or why one would want to move Mahajan’s abstraction layer in the first place. Although Mahajan teaches that its system can operate in a distributed environment, based on the explicit disclosure of Mahajan and its examples, we do not understand “distributed” to mean that (i) the server processes can occur on client devices and (ii) that client processes can occur on server devices. See Ex. 1114 ¶¶ 51, 58, 60, 61, 76, 77. Rather, we understand “distributed computing environments” to encompass “an environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network” because that is what is taught in Mahajan. Id. ¶ 58. Our understanding is supported by the testimony of Mr. Lett. See Ex. 1198 ¶ 8 (reciting the explicit disclosure in Mahajan). It is clear, based on the plain reading of Mahajan, that the distributed environment indicates that server 202 and client 204 could be located in different locations, but would be linked through a communications network where user-command 230 flows from client 204 to server 202. See Ex. 1114 ¶ 35, Fig. 2. At no point does Mahajan teach or even suggest that user-commands 230 would flow from server 202 to client 204 as proposed by Petitioner. Additionally, we find insufficient reason in the record to explain Petitioner’s argument appears to be based completely on hindsight bias created in view of the challenged claims. Therefore, we find little credibility in Mr. Lett’s testimony regarding the change or in Petitioner’s position. To the contrary, we find Dr. Wicker’s testimony to be credible because it is supported by the disclosures in both Mahajan and Danciu. Specifically, we agree with Dr. Wicker, who testified that Mahajan does not describe an abstraction layer as ever being on “a server in the network.” See Ex.1197, 18:21–24. We also find Dr. Wicker’s testimony credible when he explained that even if Mahajan’s abstraction layer were implemented on a server in a network as posited by Petitioner, it still would not result in the claim mapping proposed by Petitioner. See Ex. 2025 ¶ 45 (Dr. Wicker: “[T]he two abstraction modules work together to create a ‘collaboration media abstraction layer 130.’”) (citing Ex. 1114 ¶ 22; Ex. 2027, 39:6–40:12, 44:10–19 (Mr. Lett reading from and agreeing with paragraph 45 of Dr. Wicker’s Declaration)).” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,356,251 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,356,251
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.