• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00124 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Neufeld grounds; the Board found the IPMI and Lawrence grounds insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’140 patent. Dec. on Inst. 7–8. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or” slip op. at 7

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

    “same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. 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). in claim 1 means “said managed network device.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for this term as it appears to be consistent with the Specification’s use of “element” as referring to networked devices, and with the overall claim. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner construction§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “First, Petitioner argues that “an out of band access connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the recited function being “connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller for management of said network device.” Id. at 10. Petitioner argues that the function’s corresponding structure is “one or more of the following networks: a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (2:45–57, 3:2–4, 12:37-61), an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (2:45–57), a cellular network (6:14–21, 7:60–62, 12:37–61), an Ethernet network (12:37–61), a wireless network, and/or a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (12:37–61, 15:55–60), where the one or more networks use one or more of the following protocols: [Simple Network Management Protocol (“SNMP”)], TFTP, FTP, DNS, SysLog, Telnet, SSH, HTTP, HTTPs, point to point IP, and/or XML (8:30–38).” Id. Second, Petitioner argues that “virtual management interface connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the following recited with said secure management access controller’; (ii) ‘provides logical separation of management data from user data,’ and (iii) ‘utilizes user interfaces of said managed network element for connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller.’” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner argues that the functions’ corresponding structure is a VPN. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:22–44, 6:63– 7:5, 12:5–21).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Lastly, we determine that we do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,325,140 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,325,140
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00109 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over grounds involving Neufeld; the Board found the grounds involving IPMI and Huckins insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’016 patent. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56)). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’016 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In addition, we find not credible Dr. Mishra’s deposition testimony that Neufeld teaches only out-of-band communication, and it is not possible for a remote management command to come to remote management controller 116 via network N and through NIC 110. See Ex. 1043,22 43:5– 44:6, 49:9–50:7; PO Sur-reply 4–5. This testimony is inconsistent with Neufeld’s express teachings, which we discuss above. Compare Ex. 1043, 43:5–44:6, 49:9–50:7, with Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11–12, 15, 34–35, 43, Figs. 1–2.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068−69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that “the Board focused on what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention”). Petitioner’s arguments focus on that the modified version of IPMI could have been made, rather than that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings to make the proffered combination. For example, Petitioner argues that the modified IPMI version is “one way to implement a side-band connection.” Pet. 62. This argues that the modified IPMI version could have been made. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combined modifications because “IPMI’s LAN Controller already has the necessary logic and hardware to send packets to [the] managed server via the PCI bus as shown in unmodified version of Fig. 12-1.” Pet. Reply 23; see also id. at 24 (arguing that “implementing the I2C sideband interface taught by IPMI using a PCI-I2C controller/bridge is a simple and logical solution on the PCI bus”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why this would be a motivation to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” to IPMI’s teachings. E.g., PO Resp. 60; PO Sur-reply 20. And, we find persuasive Dr. Mishra’s testimony that “[r]equiring a LAN controller to offload management data onto the PCI bus only to route it back internally via the I/O Controller Hub introduces unnecessary design complexity, reduces system performance, and consumes additional bandwidth and power, all without technical justification.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 148; see also id. ¶¶ 145–146 (testifying to the modified combination’s operation). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s criticisms of the modified version of Figure 12-1 “do not defeat the Petition’s showing of obviousness because ‘[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Pet. Reply 26 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). But Petitioner does not address why the modified version of IPMI is suitable. Nor does Petitioner persuasively counter Dr. Mishra’s testimony as to why one of skill in the art would not have made the proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 24–26; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 145–148. In addition, in our view, Petitioner’s modification of IPMI to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” is driven by impermissible hindsight and the desire to locate a distinct, second bus (the PCI bus) as required by the claims. Petitioner’s arguments to this end rely impermissibly on the ’016 patent itself as a roadmap. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’)); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,474,016 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,474,016
• Kohler Co. v. Delta Faucet Co.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00700 · APJ Jane E Inglese · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–24 unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior-art grounds, including Tseng’s disclosure of side-emitted light under the Director’s construction.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand from Director Review is entered pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Having reviewed the complete trial record pursuant to the Director Review Order, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the challenged claims are unpatentable.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Petitioner’s witness (Mr. Cook) qualifies as a POSITA under this definition, and, therefore, is qualified to opine from the perspective of a POSITA on technical matters included within the areas of expertise prescribed by the definition. As indicated above, Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA does not require education in the field of optics and professional experience designing or analyzing optical apparatus, unlike Patent Owner’s definition. We are aware, however, that Patent Owner’s witness (Dr. Klopp) has more extensive experience with optical systems and methods than Petitioner’s witness (Mr. Cook). Compare Ex 1003 ¶¶ 8–14, Ex. 2005, 39:21–59:17, with Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 3–20, Ex. 2004, 1–2, Ex. 1015, 10:22–13:25. Although Mr. Cook possesses excellent credentials in the field of mechanical engineering, his experience in the design and analysis of optical systems and methods is sparse and insubstantial compared to that of Dr. Klopp. Id. Due to this difference in experience levels, in instances where the witnesses express differing views on factual issues related to optical systems and methods, we accord more weight to Dr. Klopp’s testimony than to Mr. Cook’s.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The Director’s Order instructs us to adopt its interpretation of the recitation in claim 10 of “an outer illumination surface extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing” (“the disputed limitation”) as being “satisfied by any amount of light emitted from the side surface.” Order 3. We, accordingly, construe the disputed limitation of claim 10 as a surface extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the housing through which any amount of light is emitted from the side surface.” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 10,393,363 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,393,363
• Early Warning Services, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 unpatentable because the cited grounds did not establish the required …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based barcode reader and not a laser-based barcode scanner because we are persuaded that claim language and Specification support that interpretation and also because Patent Owner persuasively shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term as such. Claim 1 recites an “image capture device configured to capture an image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–25. The plain meaning of the claim term requires that the image be captured, not just scanned. The claim further requires “generating an output based on the information embedded in the image,” requiring that information is retrieved from the captured image. Id. at 16:32–33. A device that does not capture an image is not an “image capture device” under the plain language of the claim. A laser-based barcode scanner employs light reflected from a laser beam to “generate an electrical signal that corresponds to the bars and spaces in the barcode being scanned.” See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining in detail how laser-based barcode self-emitting a laser light across a code to be scanned, with a sensor tuned to capture the reflected light from the laser.”). It simply does not capture an image. slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. The field of the ’167 patent “relates generally to secure transactions, and more specifically, to methods and devices for providing secure identification, verification, and authorization using a portable secure device.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’167 patent seeks “to provide methods and devices that are capable of providing secure transactions in a more efficient manner.” Id. at 3:11–13. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our patentability analysis would be the same under Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Wang fails to disclose limitation 1[a]. Wang discloses a portable electronic authorization device (PEAD) that can be used as a self-checkout terminal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 115. In this context, Wang discloses By entering the UPC code or barcode using keypad on the PEAD or scanning in the UPC code or barcode using the input device built into the PEAD such as a barcode scanner or OCR reader, the PEAD can generate the receipt with the list of item prices through the wireless network and Internet by querying the item price using the barcode as the index for price lookup table which is Stored in a Server System. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above (Section III.C.1), we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based device and not a laser-based barcode scanner. Petitioner does not contend that Wang’s disclosure of the barcode scanner necessarily refers to an imaging-based device, but argues that Wang’s disclosure is sufficient because “both imaging-based barcode scanners and laser-based barcode scanners constitute image capture devices.” Reply 11. In light of our claim construction above, we disagree.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and Drummond. Pet. 30–43. 1. Drummond Drummond is a patent titled “Automated Banking Machine System and Method,” and “relates to an automated banking machine apparatus and system that are capable of use in a wide area network, and which provides a user with a remote electronic receipt or other record related to a transaction performed at the machine.” Ex. 1008, code (54), ¶ 2. Drummond discloses that its automated banking machine, may “initiate the sending of a non-paper transaction receipt to the customer,” “[t]he receipt may be sent using a wide area network, such as the Internet,” and “[t]he receipt may be an electronic receipt, for example a receipt in the form of an e-mail message.” Id. ¶ 247. 2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 For this obviousness ground, Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence as its Ground 1a (anticipation by Wang), discussed above, for the majority of claim limitations. See Pet. 33–43. Importantly, Petitioner relies solely on Wang as teaching independent claim limitations [1a], [23a], and [43b] relating to an image capture device and embedded information. Pet. 36, 41, 43. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Ground 1a, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang and Drummond.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,167 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,167
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01116 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner did not prove claims 1, 2, 27, 37, 58, 60–64, 67–79, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 197, 199–204, 208–216, 223, 225, or 230 unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the claimed blurring …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “(Ex. 1003), that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof,” and that “[a]dditional years of experience could substitute for an advanced-level degree (and vice-versa).” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–30).” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction In these proceedings, there is no controversy that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Obviousness of Claims 2, 27, 37, 58, 60–64, 67–79, 186, 187, 189, 191,” slip op. at 10

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

    “obviousness of the menus in the Ahn-Chaudhri combination following a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture to open the menu.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing 01119-Petition, 26–33, substantially identical to Pet. 32– 40). However, again, the Petition does not explain an alternative theory in which Chaudhri supplements Ahn’s menu functionality to move that menu onto the screen, as opposed to teaching visual cues provided by gradual changes of the display during a gesture or the visual cue that an unlock image may provide during the unlock gesture. See Pet. 14–18 (describing Chaudhri teaching “visual differentiation” or “transitioning an optical intensity” between a user-interface object and the background, based on, e.g., transparency), 35–40 (same). In Reply, Petitioner adds evidence to attempt to support its contention that the combination teaches a menu following a user’s finger during a dragging gesture, involving references to Chaudhri’s discussion of a visual cue, further discussing Chaudhri’s unlock image. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 54, 62, 74–79, Figs. 5A-5C (cited at Pet. Reply 4–5). With respect to these citations and arguments, even if they had been timely presented in the Petition, we agree with Patent Owner that they do not articulate a modification of Ahn with Chaudhri or a motivation to combine. PO Sur-reply 6. Additionally, we agree that these embodiments of Chaudhri are distinct from the cited portions of Chaudhri discussed with respect to this theory in the Petition, which relate not to the movement of displayed graphics, but to variations of optical intensity and visual cues. Id. at 6–7. We evaluate the Petition’s arguments in light of Petitioner’s statement in Reply that they require a teaching regarding “menus . . . following a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture.” Pet. Reply 2. To the extent that the Petition shows that the combination of Ahn and Chaudhri would show visual changes as the user performs a dragging gesture, these do not relate to the movement of a menu, but rather to other optical effects. Thus, as we do not find that the Petition supports an Ahn-Chaudhri combination in which a menu follows a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture to open the menu, as Petitioner argues, we determine that Petitioner has not shown limitation 2.d of claim 2 taught or suggested by the combination of Ahn and Chaudhri according to this theory.” slip op. at 31

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner argues that “even under [this] interpretation of Ahn, the only difference between Ahn and the claims is whether the animation occurs in direct correspondence with a user’s dragging gesture or after the dragging gesture is complete – a straightforward design choice if ever there was one.” Pet. Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1024, 99:16–108:20; Ex. 1023 ¶ 12). However, as Patent Owner argues (PO Sur-reply 7–8) this argument is presented in Reply and is an improper shift of theory from the Petition. Nevertheless, were we to consider it, we would not find it compelling; Dr. Terveen’s cited testimony repeats this bare statement and is not supported by any evidence or additional explanation. Ex. 1023 ¶ 12; see 37 CFR § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (assigning little weight to opinion testimony that “merely repeats” conclusory statements in a brief, without “cit[ing] any additional supporting evidence or provid[ing] any technical reasoning to support [the declarant’s] statement”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,754 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,754
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01115 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Apple did not prove claims 1, 2, 27, 37, 58, 60–64, 67–79, 186, 187, 189, 191, 192, 197, 199–204, 208–216, 223, 225, and 230 unpatentable over the asserted Ahn combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In the Decision on Institution in each proceeding, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advancedlevel degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 15–16. Patent Owner “does not agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill” but did not propose an alternative definition. PO Resp. 10–11. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Rosenberg, adopted Dr. Terveen’s definition for the purposes of his declaration. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 32–33. We again adopt the main portion of Dr. Terveen’s definition, and determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers.” This definition is commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony.” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction In these proceedings, there is no controversy that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). D. Obviousness of Claims 2, 27, 37, 58, 60–64, 67–79, 186, 187, 189, 191,” slip op. at 10

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

    “obviousness of the menus in the Ahn-Chaudhri combination following a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture to open the menu.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing 01119-Petition, 26–33, substantially identical to Pet. 32– 40). However, again, the Petition does not explain an alternative theory in which Chaudhri supplements Ahn’s menu functionality to move that menu onto the screen, as opposed to teaching visual cues provided by gradual changes of the display during a gesture or the visual cue that an unlock image may provide during the unlock gesture. See Pet. 14–18 (describing Chaudhri teaching “visual differentiation” or “transitioning an optical intensity” between a user-interface object and the background, based on, e.g., transparency), 35–40 (same). In Reply, Petitioner adds evidence to attempt to support its contention that the combination teaches a menu following a user’s finger during a dragging gesture, involving references to Chaudhri’s discussion of a visual cue, further discussing Chaudhri’s unlock image. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 54, 62, 74–79, Figs. 5A-5C (cited at Pet. Reply 4–5). With respect to these citations and arguments, even if they had been timely presented in the Petition, we agree with Patent Owner that they do not articulate a modification of Ahn with Chaudhri or a motivation to combine. PO Sur-reply 6. Additionally, we agree that these embodiments of Chaudhri are distinct from the cited portions of Chaudhri discussed with respect to this theory in the Petition, which relate not to the movement of displayed graphics, but to variations of optical intensity and visual cues. Id. at 6–7. We evaluate the Petition’s arguments in light of Petitioner’s statement in Reply that they require a teaching regarding “menus . . . following a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture.” Pet. Reply 2. To the extent that the Petition shows that the combination of Ahn and Chaudhri would show visual changes as the user performs a dragging gesture, these do not relate to the movement of a menu, but rather to other optical effects. Thus, as we do not find that the Petition supports an Ahn-Chaudhri combination in which a menu follows a user’s finger as the user performs the dragging gesture to open the menu, as Petitioner argues, we determine that Petitioner has not shown limitation 2.d of claim 2 taught or suggested by the combination of Ahn and Chaudhri according to this theory.” slip op. at 31

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “(3) Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner has not shown limitation 2.d to be taught, suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by Ahn and Chaudhri. Thus, we determine that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 2 would have been obvious over the combination of Ahn and Chaudhri.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,754 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,754
• Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Mooney; the Board also found Mooney combined with Lee renders the disputed limitations obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 2 (citing Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 57). “Patent Owner agrees with the Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Resp. 4. Patent Owner adds that a POSITA would have had “at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in wireless communication between devices.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29). Mr. Zaheer testifies that a POSITA “would” slip op. at 9

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

    “The claim language and specification define and describe an “activation cue” in functional terms: a data communication from an external source is received by the cell phone and recognized as an activation cue if it causes the switching element to be assigned its first (activated) state. Ex. 1001, 9:28–31, 9:42–46, 10:14–16, 13:55–60, 14:53–59, 15:4–6, 19:20–26. Patent Owner agrees that “upon an activation cue being received by portable electronic device 10, switching element 44b switches to its activated state.” Resp. 19 (quoting Ex. 1001, 10:14–16). The activation cue may be a predetermined bit sequence, a predetermined contactless data transmission, continuously emitted, pulsed, or punctual, but these are unclaimed non-limiting embodiments of the preferred form of data transmission. Id. at 9:25–26 (“for example a predetermined bit sequence”), 11:20–22 (“One example . . . emit an activation cue in the form of a predetermined contactless data transmission”), 14:65–15:3 (continuously emitted, pulsed or punctual cue). We will not read such preferred embodiments from the specification into claim language that is not so limited. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (care should be taken “not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim”); see also In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification”); see also IQRIS Techns. LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 2025 WL 727717, *4 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“It is the claims, not the preferred embodiments, that” slip op. at 15

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner

    “operatively linked to said electronic circuit” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. We note there is no presumption of applying means-plus-function analysis to the switching element, because the limitation does not use the words “means for” that would mandate such claim construction treatment, and “switching” may invoke structure as well as function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349–1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (holding that “use of the word ‘means’ creates a presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 applies”). Regardless, we look to the meaning of the claim phrase at issue in view of the specification. We determine that the ’294 patent provides a clear, concise meaning for the switching element upon which both parties rely for construction. Patent Owner’s express agreement with Petitioner, that the claimed switching element is described in the ’294 patent as “any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations in response to an activation cue being received by transceiver 18 or not,’” is particularly telling because it is not consistent with Patent Owner’s argument that the switching element means “switching of the data.” Resp. 7, 31 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28–318). The claim language does not recite, and the specification does not describe, the switching element as a device that switches the data. Therefore, we determine the claimed “data conveyance switching element” means any type of switching device that allows data to be 8 We presume Patent Owner’s citation to “Exh. 2001, 9:28-31” on page 7 was intended to be a citation to the ’294 patent (Ex. 1001), as cited on page 31. whether or not an “activation cue” is received by the cell phone “cue receiver.”” slip op. at 21

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “[external] data exchange device” as a device with a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). As above, whether we construe the “[external] data exchange device” under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, sixth paragraph or not, the result is the same. Patent Owner, quoting the description of a data exchange device in the ’294 patent, contends that a “[external] data exchange device” “can be any sort of data exchange device comprising an electronic circuit (not shown) therein and a data transceiver 9a.” Resp. 8 (quoting Ex. 1001, 9:4–6). Patent Owner also responds to the Petition by clarifying that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). Petitioner argues in reply that Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s mappings of Mooney’s “cordless telephone base unit” or “cellular network infrastructure” to the claimed data exchange devices, such that no construction is necessary to resolve the dispute. Reply 5 (citing Resp. 16–37; Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Limitations [1.c] and [1.d] recite “a first [second] data transceiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit [in the cell phone],” both of which are defined functionally as “for exchanging data between said electronic circuit [in the cell phone] and a first [second] external data exchange device over a first [second] communication link.” Nothing in the the other independent claims, further limits the form or function of the “[external] data exchange device,” although a device external to the cell phone may invoke additional structure. We determine the plain meaning of “[external] data exchange device” as claimed and described in the ’294 patent governs: any [external] device that comprises an electronic circuit and data transceiver for exchanging data with the electronic circuit in the cell phone over a communication link. slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 30, 2025 · IPR2024-01072 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed prior-art combinations; the Board also denied Patent Owner’s motion to strike.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’960 patent. Dec. on Inst. 10. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree,” and “at least 2 years of experience designing eyewear and/or consumer electronics,” and that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. (citing Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)) (alteration in original). Patent Owner proposes a different definition for one of ordinary skill in the art, but does not specifically address any deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’960 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 5–6; Pet. Reply 1–2. We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). We afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Below we focus on the first of these tests. “We determine the field of endeavor ‘by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325)). We agree with Petitioner and find that the ’960 patent is in the field of eyewear and consumer electronics. Pet. 13. The ’960 patent discloses that its “subject matter is directed to electronic eyewear modules and systems to be worn by a wearer, whereby an electronic eyewear system with a docking station can be easily joined with a plurality of electronic application modules.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4; Pet. 9. We also agree with Petitioner that the ’960 patent acknowledges “a need for a single pair of fashionable eyewear capable of . . . utilizing one or more of a multitude of different application devices while the wearer is wearing the eyewear.” Ex. 1001, 1:59–62; Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he ’960 [p]atent pertains to the field of wearable embedded electronics, namely ‘commercial eyewear comprising electronics.’” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:24–25). We view the parties’ descriptions of the field of the ’960 patent to be substantively the same.” slip op. at 25

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

    “We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s “application module for eyewear is one such suitable device in which to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 156). This argument and testimony are consistent with Rosenblatt’s teaching of a wide variety of suitable devices. Compare id. and Ex. 1003 ¶ 156, with Ex. 1007 ¶ 7. Moreover, as Petitioner argues, Rosenblatt teaches that its “key . . . may include a clip or other connecting mechanism for attaching [the] key . . . to an object that the user typically carries,” such as “a user’s wallet, cellular telephone, personal media device (e.g., an iPod), wired headset, wireless headset, watch, bag, belt, article of clothing, or any other suitable object.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). We find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s eyewear system is a carried object like a wired or wireless headset in the context of Rosenblatt’s teaching. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 156; Ex. 1007 ¶ 43. We also find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that incorporating Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality into Jannard’s application module “desirably ‘provid[es] functional fashion having device operation capabilities,’ which is consistent with Rosenblatt recommendations.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 156 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 58) (alteration in original); Ex. 1007 ¶ 58 (“[T]he key may be integrated with operation capabilities.”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality in Jannard’s application module to achieve the benefits disclosed in Rosenblatt, including controlling host devices responsive to wireless communication with Jannard’s application module. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 156. We view this as using a known technique (Rosenblatt’s teaching of incorporating a key or its functionality into an electronic device) to improve a similar device (Jannard’s eyewear and application module with wireless communication for functions) in the same way. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); see also Pet. 48; Ex. 1003 ¶ 157.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,598,960 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,598,960
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01070 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 and 12–19 are unpatentable; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish unpatentability for those claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Based on the record currently before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The parties agree that “constrain” means to retain the module in a fixed position. Patent Owner further interprets “constrain” not to allow minor movement. This interpretation is consistent with the ’174 patent, which states, In some embodiments, the first electrical conductor may be configured to constrain or substantially constrain the electronics module. As used in this context, “constrain” may refer to when the first electrical conductor is configured to provide support (i.e. a restraining force) for the electronics module to retain the module in a fixed position within the temple. That is, the first electrical conductor may be configured to hold the electronics module in place. . . . The term “substantially constrain” is used in this context to account for some minor movement of the electronics module within the temple, but the conductor may generally hold the electronics module within the temple in place (such that it remains in an operative position). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:3 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’174 patent distinguishes between an electrical conductor configure to “constrain” an electronics module and an electrical conductor configured to “substantially constrain” an electronics module, with the latter allowing for “some minor movement of the electronics module.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “constrain” as used in claim 1 to mean the first and second electrical conductors are configured to provide a restraining force that retains the module in a fixed position without allowing for minor movement of the electronics module.7 This interpretation also is consistent with Petitioner’s interpretation, which includes retaining the module in a fixed position within the temple. See Pet. 20.” slip op. at 24

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “therefore, are unavailing. As correctly noted by Petitioner, Brunton discloses that “the [hearing aid] units may be provided with any suitable number of contact pins and the sockets provided with a corresponding number of tubular contacts that are positioned to receive the pins and in which the pins are frictionally retained.” Ex. 1003, 3:61–65 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Feland, testifies, Frictionally retaining the hearing aid unit’s pins in the cavity means that the socket contacts couple the hearing aid unit to the temple and constrain the hearing aid unit. Brunton’s socket contacts (corresponding to the claimed first and second electrical conductors) accordingly are configured to couple the hearing aid unit (corresponding to the claimed electronics module) to the temple to constrain the hearing aid unit. Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. We credit this testimony of Dr. Feland, which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of a friction-fit connection. We give less credit to the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Oliver. Dr. Oliver testifies that “Brunton describes a cover plate that physically secures the sockets.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:71–4:1). However, this assertion is contradicted by the very disclosure Dr. Oliver quotes in his declaration, which explains that the material of the temple retains the sockets in place: “The sockets for the transistor and unit, such as the sockets 19 and 20, may be frictionally held in the cavity or may be embedded in the material of the temple, as may be desired.” Ex. 1003, 3:71–74 (emphases added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same). Brunton does disclose a cover plate to cover the cavity, but Brunton does not disclose or suggest that the cover plate contacts or otherwise influences the hearing aid: “In the design shown, the temple is provided with a cover plate 31 that is secured in position over the unit 77 and the transistor 29 with screws 32.” Ex. 1003, 3:74–4:1; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same).” slip op. at 27

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

    “We are persuaded that Petitioner has set forth adequate reasoning to combine the teachings of Eichelberger and Howell-596. Howell-596 teaches electronic circuitry having UV radiation monitoring capability that can be used within eyewear. Ex. 1015, code (57). Howell-596 discloses that the UV detection system can be activated by a switch, which can be a capacitive touch switch. Id. ¶¶ 88, 191; Ex. 1019, 172. As discussed above, Eichelberger teaches a capacitive touch switch with electronic components disposed thereon. Ex. at 3:6–14, 3:43–50. We are persuaded that using Eichelberger’s capacitive touch switch in place of Howell-596’s would have been obvious. See Pet. 83–84; Ex. 1002 ¶ 221. e. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Howell-596 and Eichelberger.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,801,174 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,801,174

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.