• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2026 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst because the combination teaches the claim limitations and has motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On February 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating the Second Final Decision as to all challenged claims and remanding for further proceedings. Netflix II, 7. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s claim construction, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the claim construction the 6 The First Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42), where we granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and dismissed-in-part that Motion. See 1st Final Dec. 28–37. Our determinations on that Motion were a part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. As the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the First Final Written Decision, we determine our conclusions with respect to that Motion remain undisturbed. Federal Circuit adopted. Id. The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 23, 2026.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video streaming and media security or . . . a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video streaming and media security.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not refute Petitioner’s assessment and appears to apply such a level of skill in its arguments against combining Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst to teach or suggest the elements of the challenged claims. See generally PO Resp. As such, we continue to adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Inst. Dec. 6; 1st Final Dec. 6; 2nd Final Dec. 10.” slip op. at 7

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

    “In response, we conclude that the most natural reading of limitation [l] results from examination of the entire limitation: “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” Ex. 1001, 27:54–57. The “within” most naturally connotes where the encrypted portions of frames of video occur, as opposed to determining where the encryption information may be located. Patent Owner’s interpretation is not wrong, i.e., the limitation could be read as Patent Owner suggests, leading to a narrower construction, but we are not persuaded that the construction of limitation [l] must be so limited, on the basis of the words themselves. We continue to reject Patent Owner’s interpretation that limitation [l] requires locating encryption information within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. See Inst. Dec. 27–30; 1st Final Dec. 8. Although it is apparent that encryption information can be found within the requested portions, we are not persuaded that the claim language or ’588 Patent implicitly or explicitly requires such a relationship. Likewise, although embodiments disclosed in the Specification of the ’588 Patent are consistent with Patent Owner’s more restrictive construction, the Specification also is consistent with the more grammatically correct construction as well. Thus, we construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encrypted portions of frames of video be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video, but we do not construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encryption information be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” slip op. at 15

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

    “We are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix I, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17–19, 69–70). We agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41–15:60). We determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand

  On Director remand, the Board determined claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 103, including claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “all Challenged Claims unpatentable and denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Paper 47 (“Original Final Decision”). Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review and Petitioner filed an authorized Response thereto. Papers 48, 49. On July 29, 2026, the Director granted review, vacated-in-part the Original Final Decision, and remanded the case to the Board. Paper 50. In particular, the Director directed the Board “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to the webserver limitation in deciding whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable under Petitioner’s Ground 1B.” Id. at 4. We do so in this Final Written Decision on Remand (“Remand Decision”). See infra § III.E (Ground 1B). For completeness, we repeat herein our analysis in the Original Final Decision for all other grounds.” slip op. at 2

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; see CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”). “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). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Petitioner contends that “[t]he claim terms of the ’218 [patent] should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by the relevant artisan. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan “would have understood a ‘socket’ to be a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a [viewer client device] VCD.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan also would have understood an “event socket,” in turn, to be “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Beyond such proposed plain meanings for “socket” and “event” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “(6) Conclusion as to Objective Indicia of Non- Obviousness For the foregoing reasons, although we have considered Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, we accord it little weight, and find that it does not outweigh Petitioner’s strong countervailing evidence supporting a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 53

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

    “engineer with substantial experience in Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols, including an understanding of relaytype and orchestrator-type webservers, would have considered the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole, including the webserver, to be obvious in light of the combined teachings of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. Based on the context discussed above, and for the reasons provided above, we determine that the answer is yes. See Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 78

  Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,039,218
• Apple Inc. v. Memoryweb, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 8, 2026 · PGR2022-00006 · APJ Jason M Repko · PGR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–59 unpatentable: claims 1–6, 8–37, 40–44, and 49–59 over A3UM under §103, and claims 6, 7, 38, and 39 for lack of written description under §112.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On remand, the Board is to determine “[w]hether the alleged inconsistency in [Petitioner’s] treatment of map images compared to other first/second versions of claim elements supports rejecting [Petitioner’s] theory on claim-construction or other merits grounds is a matter for the Board to consider in the first instance on remand, constrained by any relevantly similar now-final findings of fact and conclusions of law in the ’020 PGR and related proceedings” (CAFC Dec. 16). Thus, the two issues on remand are (1) the construction of the second map image and (2) whether A3UM teaches or suggests the claimed “second map image” under that construction.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art in 2011 would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or electrical engineering, and (2) at least one year of experience designing graphical user interfaces for applications such as photo management systems. Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46). In the Institution Decision and Final Written Decision, we applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Inst. Dec. 12; FWD 30–31. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7. We continue to find that the skill level identified by Petitioner (Pet. 12) is consistent with the record. Thus, we use the same definition here that we used in the Institution Decision and Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 6

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

    “c. Analysis We agree with Petitioner that the “second map image” should be construed as the map image in the second person view. Reply 5. Under Petitioner’s proposed construction, the terms “first” and “second” identify which person view that the map image is within. Id. The map image’s connection to the person view is important to how the user interacts with the interface because selecting the map image in one view does something different than selecting the map image in another, as recited in claims 14 and 46.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Here, we disagree with Patent Owner’s argument because it is based on the premise that the second map image is different from the first in a way that is not reflected in the claims. See Section II.C.3 supra. Even if “the claims consistently use the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ to refer to separate and distinct elements,” A3UM’s first and second map images are separate and distinct elements for at least the reason they are included in separate and distinct views in the interface. See Pet. 63; Reply 5. As discussed in Section II.C.3, the second map image is the map image in the second person view. Here, Petitioner sufficiently shows that A3UM provides the same functionality for each person, including displaying the person in the Faces view with their name within A3UM’s overall user interface. See Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1003, ¶215; Ex. 1005, 418–420). Patent Owner does not dispute this. See PO Resp.; Sur-reply. For the same reasons why A3UM teaches the “first map image” with respect to a first person view recited in claims 1 and 31, Petitioner has shown that A3UM also teaches the “second map image” in the second person view. See FWD 53–56. In sum, Patent Owner’s arguments are unpersuasive because they are based on an incorrect claim construction, and Petitioner has shown that claims 13 and 45 are unpatentable. 5. Claims 14–16 and 46–48 Apart from the arguments analyzed above, Patent Owner does not present separate arguments directed to the subject matter of claims 14–16 burden to show that the challenged claims are unpatentable. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence submitted in connection with the remaining limitations and find them persuasive as they are consistent with and supported by the evidence of record. See Pet. 63–64. Thus, Petitioner has shown that claims 14–16 and 46–48 are unpatentable over A3UM.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,020 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosure
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,020
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

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

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand

  Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) as “requiring [inter partes review] petitions to identify ‘with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim’”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelOther

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11

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

    “1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable

    “Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,620,039
• Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 22, 2026 · IPR2022-01002 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1–9 and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Paulraj and Heath under § 103.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “determining no challenged claim had been proved unpatentable by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”). Paper 41. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Papers 43, 44. On January 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, on the basis that the Board erred by not considering certain alternative arguments presented in the Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 29), which were properly responsive to claim construction proposed in the Patent Owner Response and adopted by the Board.1 Paper 45. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argued that even under the Patent Owner’s claim construction relating to “the plurality of antennas,” the same prior art references nonetheless still rendered obvious the challenged claims. In this remand proceeding, neither party requested the filing of additional briefing, despite having been given an opportunity to make and explain such a request. Paper 51. We have authority to conduct this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered all of the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Reply, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 and 12–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’083 patent”) are unpatentable. A.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner additionally states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not in its Response address the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Cooklev, testifies that he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a POSITA [as Petitioner].” Ex. 2004 ¶ 19. Based on the evidence of record, we determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems. This is consistent with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, with the exception of Petitioner’s open-ended reference to “at least” two years of experience, because that would improperly encompass a level of experience only possessed by an expert. This articulation of the level of ordinary skill is also the same as what we determined in the Final Written decision issued on November 30, 2023. Paper 41, 6. C. slip op. at 6

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

    “Patent Owner contends: “The plain meaning of the claims requires that the same ‘plurality of antennas’ be used for transmitting and receiving the plurality of signal streams.” PO Resp. 5, 9–12. Citing Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, Patent Owner contends that the ’083 patent’s Specification describes embodiments that use the same antennas for both transmitting and receiving data streams. PO Resp. 7–9 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34–35). In the Final Written Decision, we determined: Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas— one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Paper 41, 13 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit agreed with our claim construction. Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir., slip op. 24-1419 (January 13, 2026) (2026 WL 91021) (Paper 45, 2–4). We continue to apply the same construction here that we adopted in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “legally sufficient motivation for modifying Paulraj, but only attempted to show that the modification “could” have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art which is not enough for a showing of obviousness. Sur-reply 8–9. We disagree with Patent Owner. Establishing that certain technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the challenged patent constitutes sufficient motivation to make a modification in accordance with what was well-known in the art to one of ordinary skill, absent factors not present here. Indeed, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That would be the situation where a technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, unless there is actual difficulty in making the application. The “improvement” here, although not articulated by Petitioner, is inherent with the technique, not requiring use of separate antennas for transmitting and receiving, i.e., eliminating the need for additional parts. Further, it is not necessary to show that a modification is the “best option,” because any “suitable option” would suffice. See Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, Patent Owner does not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had difficulty modifying Paulraj to use some of the same antennas both for transmitting and for receiving. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same antenna(s) for both transmitting and for receiving. We further note the following description in the Specification of the ’083 patent: “The typical CT/MD [cellular telephone/mobile device] has one transmitter and one receiver (T/R), with one antenna.” Ex. 1001, 1:47–48. That statement is fully consistent with Petitioner’s assertion that it was well-known to use the same antenna for transmitting and for receiving. For the foregoing reasons, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently has shown that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paulraj such that some of the same antennas would be used both for transmitting and for receiving, according to limitations 1[b], 1[d], and 1[e].” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 9,191,083 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,191,083
• Google LLC v. Mindbasehq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2021-01252 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 14–19, 33–40, and 43–46 were held unpatentable as obvious; the Federal Circuit’s affirmed findings leave claims 1–13, 20–32, 41, and 42 unpatentable as well.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “to both cases vacating and remanding in part and affirming in part our Final Written Decisions. Appeal Dec. With respect to Petitioner’s appeals, the Federal Circuit addressed the “dictionary routine” claims (claims 14–19 and 33–40) and the “normalization” claims (claims 43–46). Appeal Dec. 7–14. For the “dictionary routine” claims, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, stating that In sum, as Google contends and we now hold, the “dictionary routine” claims can be practiced by use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary. The Board needs to consider Google’s evidence and argument by applying this construction of the automatically classifying and storing limitation, and using this understanding to determine whether Conlon may, in fact, render the “dictionary routine” claims obvious (and, relatedly, whether its prior distinctions of Conlon may be immaterial). Appeal Dec. 10–11. For the “normalization” claims, the Federal Circuit also vacated and remanded, stating that our “decision to exclude Google’s rebuttal argument and supplemental declaration is based on a clear factual error,” so on remand we “must include evaluation of the evidence and argument Google provided in reply.” Id. at 13–14. With respect to Patent Owner’s cross-appeals, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Id. at 14–16.” slip op. at 3

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

    “The Federal Circuit concluded that Petitioner’s construction of “automatically classifying and storing” (as recited in limitation [14.3]), is correct. Appeal Dec. 8. That is, “the ‘dictionary routine’ claims can be practiced by [the] use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary.” Id. at 10; see also Reply 7 (the limitation is “directed to the use of a dictionary function to automatically look up words and their syntax”); Appeal Dec. 8 (“nothing about the term . . . would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that automatic ‘creation’ of a database, in addition to the ‘use’ of an already-created database, is a requirement of the dictionary routine claims”); id. (“the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to include ‘use’”); id. (agreeing with Petitioner that “the specification describes the ‘dictionary routine’ as the act of looking up words already in the database”); id. at 9 (stating that “[i]t is notable, as well, that the specification nowhere describes automatically creating a dictionary; all instances of creating dictionary entries rely, at least in part, on manual data entry by users”). As directed by the Federal Circuit, we will apply this construction in our analysis.8 Id. 8 Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit “cherry-picks” and misinterprets the patents’ specifications, and “ignores the clearly contrary specification language.” PO Remand Br. 4–5, 10; id. at 8 (arguing that that the specification clearly set forth the definition of the claim term, and “the Board must accept term definitions . . . above all external definitions”). We do not consider these arguments on the construction of this limitation, because the Federal Circuit has directed us to proceed under its construction of the limitation. We also agree with Petitioner that the Federal Circuit’s claim construction is “foreclosed from further consideration” under its” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that claim 43 is obvious over the combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong. The Federal Circuit stated, “[i]n this context, ‘normalization’ generally refers to de-duplicating and simplifying database entries (for instance, combining entries for ‘car’ and ‘automobile’).” Appeal Dec. 4 (cited at Pet. Response Br. 5). This is consistent with the disclosure in the ’433 patent. E.g., Ex. 1001, 16:55– 17:24 (discussing, for example, “recogniz[ing] that the differently named data elements in different structures are actually the same data element . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the same data elements,” “recogniz[ing] that the same named data elements in different structures are actually different data elements . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the different data elements,” and “normalizing multiple single data elements”). This is also consistent with how Fong describes “normalization.” Ex. 1029, 76 (The “Function” of “Normaliz[ing] the collection of entities” is to “[r]emove redundancies and detect errors”); see also Ex. 1057 ¶ 226. Patent Owner’s arguments that Fong’s normalization is “different” from the normalization described in the ’433 patent does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s arguments. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not provide a construction for “normalization,” despite claiming that the term is “defined” in the ’433 patent. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6; PO Remand Br. 13. Moreover, although Patent Owner purports to identify differences between the ’433 patent and Fong, the “normalization” applied is expressly recited in limitations [43.1.1], [43.1.2], and [43.2], and the subsequent actions taken on those normalized databases (i.e., comparing and recording) are recited in limitations [43.3]–[43.5]. That is, the “normalization” required by the claim is reflected in the claim language itself, and is broader than argued by Patent Owner. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art”). Patent Owner does not explain how these purported “differences” (e.g., that Fong may require the use of “database keys,” “identifiers,” “entities,” or determining ‘non-key attributes’ from key attributes) impacts the claim language, or Petitioner’s showing. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prior art reference “must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect”). For the same reasons, as well as those set forth by Petitioner, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that each DBMS requires a normalization process that is customized for it. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6–7. These arguments by Patent Owner also are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which does not recite a DBMS, and generally recites “normalizing” or “normalized” without regard to the DBMS. Id. Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations. After considering the properly presented evidence and arguments of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong teaches the limitations in claim 43, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Conlon, Miller, and Fong, and that claim 44 would have been obvious over Conlon, Miller, and Fong. 2. Analysis of Dependent Claims 44–46 Claims 44–46 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 41. We, likewise, determine whether the combination renders obvious claims 44–46, taking into account the arguments made in Petitioner’s Reply Briefs and Dr. Jansen’s Supplemental Rebuttal Declarations. Petitioner contends that dependent claims 44–46, would have been obvious over Conlon, Miller, and Fong, and provides explanation as to how the prior art teaches each claim limitation. Pet. 84–86; Reply 35–39; Pet. Remand Br. 13–14. Patent Owner does not provide further briefing on dependent claims 44–46. 14 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide#step2. Patent Owner did not specifically challenge Petitioner’s contentions as” slip op. at 31

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine Petitioner’s showing. Patent Owner did not specifically challenge Petitioner’s contentions as to the sufficiency of Conlon’s disclosure for claim 1410 in the Patent Owner Response. In the Sur-replies, Patent Owner argues that the claim requires that at least some relationships are created “automatically,” and “these automatic embodiments . . . are represented in this group of claims.” Sur-reply 9. Along these lines, in the additional briefing Patent Owner argues that Conlon does not teach “automatic,” but merely teaches “semi-automatic.” PO Remand Br. 9–10. The crux of Patent Owner’s argument, however, is that the Federal Circuit did not properly construe the limitation, and ignored certain disclosures in the ’433 (and ’680) patent. Id. at 10–11; see Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 1–4; PO Remand Resp. Br. 4–5. The Federal Circuit held that “the dictionary routine claims can be satisfied by mere use of a lexical database, and do not also require the automatic creation of additional definitions.” Appeal Dec. 10. Moreover, the statements from Conlon that Patent Owner relies upon relate to creating a database, not using the database. See id. As discussed above, on remand we are directed to apply the Federal Circuit’s construction. Patent Owner does not explain 10 As discussed in the original Final Written Decisions, Patent Owner raised several arguments that generally applied to all the claims, challenging, for example, the level of ordinary skill in the art, whether Conlon, Miller, and Beckwith were analogous art, and several general arguments relating to Conlon and the motivation to combine Conlon with a DBMS. See Final Dec. 14–23, 25–27. We were not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments; the Federal Circuit affirmed, determining that our findings were supported by substantial evidence. Appeal Dec. 14–16. why Petitioner’s contentions are not persuasive in light of the Federal Circuit’s construction of this limitation. In addition, Patent Owner argues in the Sur-replies that “[c]laims 14– 19 are not disclosed by the proffered prior art” and cites to paragraphs 78–83 of the Ranka Rebuttal Declarations. Sur-reply 10. As discussed in the original Final Written Decisions, Patent Owner’s reliance on six paragraphs of Dr. Ranka’s Rebuttal Declarations is an improper incorporation by reference, as Patent Owner did not discuss that testimony or further elaborate on these arguments in the Sur-replies. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 9–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative); see, e.g., Final Dec. 37–39, 45, 48–50, 52. Therefore, we will not consider arguments that are not made in the Sur-replies, but are instead improperly incorporated by reference to the cited paragraphs in Dr. Ranka’s Rebuttal Declarations. Accordingly, after considering the evidence and arguments of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Conlon teaches limitation [14.3], and that claim 14 would have been obvious over Conlon.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 6,665,680 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,665,680
• Google LLC v. Mindbasehq, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2021-01251 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 14–19, 33–40, and 43–46 were held unpatentable as obvious over Conlon alone or Conlon, Miller, and Fong; the affirmed unpatentability of claims 1–13, 20–32, 41, and 42 remains.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “automatically classifying and storing” (as recited in limitation [14.3]), is correct. Appeal Dec. 8. That is, “the ‘dictionary routine’ claims can be practiced by [the] use of an already-created dictionary, and do not also require the automatic creation of a dictionary.” Id. at 10; see also Reply 7 (the limitation is “directed to the use of a dictionary function to automatically look up words and their syntax”); Appeal Dec. 8 (“nothing about the term . . . would inform a person of ordinary skill in the art that automatic ‘creation’ of a database, in addition to the ‘use’ of an already-created database, is a requirement of the dictionary routine claims”); id. (“the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language is broad enough to include ‘use’”); id. (agreeing with Petitioner that “the specification describes the ‘dictionary routine’ as the act of looking up words already in the database”); id. at 9 (stating that “[i]t is notable, as well, that the specification nowhere describes automatically creating a dictionary; all instances of creating dictionary entries rely, at least in part, on manual data entry by users”). As directed by the Federal Circuit, we will apply this construction in our analysis.8 Id. 8 Patent Owner argues that the Federal Circuit “cherry-picks” and misinterprets the patents’ specifications, and “ignores the clearly contrary specification language.” PO Remand Br. 4–5, 10; id. at 8 (arguing that that the specification clearly set forth the definition of the claim term, and “the Board must accept term definitions . . . above all external definitions”). We do not consider these arguments on the construction of this limitation, because the Federal Circuit has directed us to proceed under its construction of the limitation. We also agree with Petitioner that the Federal Circuit’s claim construction is “foreclosed from further consideration” under its slip op. at 17

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

    “combination of Conlon, Miller, and Fong. The Federal Circuit stated, “[i]n this context, ‘normalization’ generally refers to de-duplicating and simplifying database entries (for instance, combining entries for ‘car’ and ‘automobile’).” Appeal Dec. 4 (cited at Pet. Response Br. 5). This is consistent with the disclosure in the ’433 patent. E.g., Ex. 1001, 16:55– 17:24 (discussing, for example, “recogniz[ing] that the differently named data elements in different structures are actually the same data element . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the same data elements,” “recogniz[ing] that the same named data elements in different structures are actually different data elements . . . is referred to as normalizing the names of the different data elements,” and “normalizing multiple single data elements”). This is also consistent with how Fong describes “normalization.” Ex. 1029, 76 (The “Function” of “Normaliz[ing] the collection of entities” is to “[r]emove redundancies and detect errors”); see also Ex. 1057 ¶ 226. Patent Owner’s arguments that Fong’s normalization is “different” from the normalization described in the ’433 patent does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s arguments. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not provide a construction for “normalization,” despite claiming that the term is “defined” in the ’433 patent. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6; PO Remand Br. 13. Moreover, although Patent Owner purports to identify differences between the ’433 patent and Fong, the “normalization” applied is expressly recited in limitations [43.1.1], [43.1.2], and [43.2], and the subsequent actions taken on those normalized databases (i.e., comparing and recording) are recited in limitations [43.3]–[43.5]. That is, the “normalization” required by the claim is reflected in the claim language itself, and is broader than argued by Patent Owner. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art”). Patent Owner does not explain how these purported “differences” (e.g., that Fong may require the use of “database keys,” “identifiers,” “entities,” or determining ‘non-key attributes’ from key attributes) impacts the claim language, or Petitioner’s showing. See EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (A prior art reference “must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect”). For the same reasons, as well as those set forth by Petitioner, we are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that each DBMS requires a normalization process that is customized for it. Pet. Remand Resp. Br. 6–7. These arguments by Patent Owner also are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language, which does not recite a DBMS, and generally recites “normalizing” or “normalized” without regard to the DBMS. Id. Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations.” slip op. at 31

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Jansen provides an example of a database in unnormalized form that is converted into a normalized form, based on Fong’s four conditions, as applied to the claim language. See Reply 31–35; Ex. 1057 ¶¶ 226–261. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner has not explained how the example maps onto the limitations. PO Remand Resp. Br. 6–12. Patent Owner’s complaint that Dr. Jansen created the graphic in the example does not undermine Petitioner’s showing. E.g., Trial Practice Guide,14 I.G., (“Experts may testify about the teachings of the prior art and how they relate to the patentability of the challenged claims.”). We find Dr. Jansen’s testimony credible and persuasive in explaining why the combination of Conlon and Fong teaches the claim limitations.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “4. Summary of Ground 1 Having considered the Graham factors,11 including the level of ordinary skill in the art, the scope and content of the prior art, and the differences between the prior art and the challenged claims, we are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14–19 and 33–40 would have been obvious over Conlon.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,510,433 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,510,433
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with additional grounds also supporting the challenged claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 32) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 33). We denied this motion. See Final Dec. 58–61.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “transmission paths. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. And we agree with both parties that the light that is transmitted directly through the plate to the sensor element does not have intervening reflections—such is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “directly to.” See PO Resp. 31–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. Nothing in claim 48’s language, however, requires that all of the reflected light be transmitted directly to the sensor element, which Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, 70:32–35; PO Resp. 31–32; PO Sur-reply 14–16. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the claim language “merely requires that some light reflected by the object goes ‘directly to’ at least one sensor element once it is transmitted through the viewing plane defining plate.” Pet. Reply 14. We also agree that “none of these dependent claims purport to be exclusive of one another.” Id. at 15. Rather, claims 46–48 simply require some light be transmitted (or propagated) for their particular transmission path, without reciting all light. See Ex. 1001, 70:24–35.” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments based on Reime alone insufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 49 is rendered obvious by Reime alone.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “And in view of the above, we find persuasive Dr. Bederson’s testimony that “[c]hoosing a multi-element detector or a single-element detector would have been a simple design choice using commercially available detectors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Reime’s receivers to be implemented using discrete single-element detectors. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner relies on expert testimony to gap-fill missing elements regarding Reime’s failure to disclose or suggest the different claim arrangements of detector elements in a ‘detector assembly.’” PO Resp. 78 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 2056 ¶ 171). Rather, in light of Reime’s teachings, coupled with the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ discrete single-element detectors for Reime’s receivers. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony to supply an element of a claim). We appropriately consider such evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as part of our obviousness analysis. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, “AAPA can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim 1371, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, Petitioner relies on the cited AAPA as evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge at the time of the ’093 patent, and the AAPA is not the basis for this ground. See Pet. 4, 42–43; Pet. Remand 4–5. As Shockwave Med. explains, Federal Circuit “case law has long recognized numerous permissible uses for general background knowledge in an IPR such as, ‘for example, furnishing a motivation to combine, or supplying a missing claim limitation.” 142 F.4th at 1378–79 (quoting Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362; Koninklijke, 948 F.3d at 1337–38)).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093

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.