• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01287 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable over Bernstein alone or with Tsuge; claims 1–3 and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to teach required limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or comparable degree or 2–3 years industry experience designing and/or maintaining back-end networking equipment.” Pet. 11. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not contest Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art, because even under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill,” Petitioner “has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, finding that it was consistent with the ’982 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Following the Institution Decision, both parties submitted proposed claim constructions in the district court stating that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2009, 3–4 (Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart); Ex. 2010, 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart). Patent Owner states in the Patent Owner Response that “[t]he parties now agree that the entire preambles of both claims 1 and 6 are limiting.” PO Resp. 17. In its Reply, Petitioner states that “whether the Board finds the phrase ‘service auto-configuration’” in the preamble to be limiting is “immaterial” because it “does not affect the analysis of whether the prior art cited in the petition invalidates [the challenged] claims.” Pet. Reply 5. At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it does not dispute that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting. Tr. 20:25–21:17, 23:15–17. Because the parties agreed in district court that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting, and also agree in this proceeding, we find that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limiting for purposes of this Decision. We will discuss the meaning of the preamble further in the sections below applying the prior art to the claims. See §§ III.A..4(a), III.A.7, III.C.1(a), III.C.7, infra.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Based on the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we do not need to, and do not, construe any other claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show that Bernstein recites a “service auto-configuration” method as recited in the preamble of claim 1. As discussed above, the parties agree that the preamble of claim 1, including the “service auto-configuration method” language, is limiting. See § II.B, supra. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the Petition does not set forth a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how the prior art discloses a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 11, 24; Inst. Dec. 32. Instead, the Petition merely explains how Bernstein teaches “a DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON (DPoE) system,” without explaining how it teaches a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 59). By failing to offer a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how this limitation is met by the prior art, the Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,287,982 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,287,982
• Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd. v. Seasonal Specialties, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01258 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 are unpatentable; claims 3 and 8 are not shown unpatentable, principally because the Inoue–Smith obviousness rationale was insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd mixedMixed

    “found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) if in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 11

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not agree with Petitioner that the fact pattern before us is analogous to Rembrandt. The rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith provided in the Petition focuses on replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs, and includes the generic statement that “[t]he numerous record-supported advantages, set forth in Smith provide a clear motivation for use of the teachings of Smith as applied to Inoue, so as to enjoy the advantages set forth in Smith.” Pet. 47. The testimony in Dr. Schubert’s Declaration at pages 99–100 cited in support of Petitioner’s Reply arguments was not cited or otherwise referenced in the Petition. See Pet. 46–55. We find that the Petitioner’s Reply is not responsive to the Institution Decision and is improper because it presents a new rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith that was not expressed in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; CTPG § II.I. Petitioner could have presented its rationale to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; CTPG § II.I. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s new rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith presented for the first time in the Reply. Based on the entire record, but not including Petitioner’s new rationale and newly cited support to Smith and Dr. Schubert’s testimony (Exs. 1013, 1017) presented for the first time in the Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sets forth in the Petition sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circuit of Inoue to include a light source or LED light source with a twinkling or flashing effect in view of Smith’s teachings. See Pet. 46–47, 49–50, 51–53, 55. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of independent claim 9 and dependent claims 3, 5, and 6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Inoue and Smith.” slip op. at 32

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed

    “Based on Petitioner’s citations to Holler, Inoue, and Dr. Schubert’s testimony (Ex. 1013), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “use the resistive value as taught by Holler in the circuit of Inoue to control the illumination of the light sources so that the other illumination devices in the serial light string will not go dark or change illumination if one of the LEDs fails or becomes disconnected.” Pet. 27; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Based on the entire record and including the reasons explained above in Section II.D.2. addressing anticipation of claim 1 by Inoue, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious over Inoue and Holler. See Pet. 26–32.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “We observe that, aside from Declaration testimony of Mr. Altamura and accompanying exhibits, Patent Owner does not offer any additional evidence to establish reduction to practice. An inventor’s testimonial assertion of inventive facts requires corroboration by independent evidence. Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The purpose of the corroboration requirement is to prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony. Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Without the requirement of independent corroboration, there would be a great temptation to commit perjury and the adverse party would be effectively precluded from a successful rebuttal. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A rule of reason applies to determining whether the inventor’s testimony has been corroborated. See id. at 1195. “The rule of reason, however, does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, based on the entire record, we find that Mr. Altamura’s Declaration testimony is uncorroborated. Yu is prior art to the ’252 Patent because Patent Owner is unable to establish actual reduction to practice earlier than the July 31, 2006, filing date of Yu.” slip op. at 51

  Patent outcomesUS 11,096,252 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,096,252
• Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29

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

    “Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,906,508
• Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning and over Leaning with Klemets; claims 12–20 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its post-institution papers. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that no construction of “virtual timeline” is necessary. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, as discussed below, the parties’ dispute appears to be about whether the “virtual timeline” identified by Petitioner is used to arrange the requested streamlets, as is also recited in claim 9. We address that argument below. See infra § II.D.10.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this record, we determine that the recitation “to achieve continuous presentation” is limiting and requires an amount of continuous (uninterrupted) playback/presentation after an upshift or downshift. The specification describes agent controller 702 determining whether to upshift based on a trigger threshold Θup, which itself is based on various factors including a current read ahead margin and a minimum safety margin. See Ex. 1001, 17:44–58. If agent controller 702 can sustain upshift quality, then it will upshift and request higher quality streams. See id. at 17:58–61. Conversely, when an upshift is not possible, agent controller 702 determines whether to downshift based a different threshold Θdown, which itself is based on the same sort of factors. See id. at 18:4–7. When the stream quality is not adequate, it downshifts. See id. at 18:7–14. These disclosures are similar to the language of claim 12, which recites “repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content at a rate sufficient for presenting the digital content as the digital content is received, . . . wherein the factor relates to a performance of the network” and “making the successive determinations whether to change the requested bit rate based on the factor to achieve continuous presentation of the digital content using the individually-requestable portions of the highest bit rate one of the copies determined receivable at that time.” Ex. 1001, 20:5–16 (emphasis added). That is, claim 12 refers to “achiev[ing] continuous presentation” based on what is “sufficient for presenting the digital content,” trading quality to ensure continuous playback.” slip op. at 14

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

    “server comprises at least two servers and wherein at least one streamlet is requested from a first of the at least one server and at least one other streamlet is requested from a second server of the at least one server other than the first server.” Ex. 1001, 19:7–12. Petitioner references its mapping of the “at least one server” in claim 1 to Leaning’s server 1. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:15–16, 2:18–22, 2:31–32, 5:8–14, Fig. 1), 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:13–26, 9:3–7, 16:6–12), 37; see supra §§ II.D.2.b–c. Petitioner contends that, “[t]o the extent Leaning does not disclose at least two servers wherein one sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a first server and another sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a second server such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the knowledge of a [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Id. at 37. Citing the common nature of such an arrangement, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide multiple web servers containing the same sets of sub-files for streams in order to have redundancy in the system and allow for clients to establish connections with multiple servers and request a first sub-file from a first web server and, if the connection between the first web server becomes congested or the first web server otherwise fails or becomes unavailable, request a subsequent sub-file from the second web server. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1012, 108,5 Fig. 4-11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 3. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to implement Leaning’s server 1 as two servers that store different streamlets based on Dr. Houh’s uncontested testimony about system redundancy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. His testimony is backed by a contemporaneous reference about HTTP that shows requests for different objects from different servers over parallel TCP connections. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 108–09, Fig. 4-11. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Leaning.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,991,234 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,991,234
• Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. University Of RochesterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01225 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–7 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8–12 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish asynchronous operation between domains.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “specification is the ‘single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ . . . and ‘is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.’” Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Although Patent Owner contends that the Specification disparages systems that impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequencies (PO Resp. 21), we find availing Petitioner’s contention that “[s]upport for Patent Owner’s construction is absent from the specification.” Pet. Reply 10. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s claim construction “appears to be based on a single paragraph of the ’443 patent referring to preexisting ‘synchronization schemes [that] restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies of the clocks.” Id. That is, the only reference by Patent Owner to the Specification is that the Specification states that “Some synchronization schemes restrict the . . . relative frequencies of the clocks, thereby eliminating the need for hardware arbitration [27]. Unfortunately, these schemes impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequences.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32–36). We agree with Petitioner that such disclosure in the Specification “does not describe how these synchronization schemes ‘restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies’ with any specificity.’” Pet. the Specification that some schemes impose restrictions on the possible choices of frequency is not a disparagement of any system that has limited choices of frequency or would preclude the claims from covering such prior art techniques. Instead, as Petitioner points out, the Specification of the ’443 patent states “[t]he preferred embodiment uses four domains […] so that domains may vary somewhat in size and still be covered by a single clock.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:57–59). As Dr. Baker testified in support of Petitioner’s contention, “the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent relies on a single external master clock that distributes a signal to the local PLL of each domain.” See Ex. 1032 ¶ 9. Thus, although Patent Owner contends that clock signals generated based on a master clock cannot be interpreted to be generated independently of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains (PO Resp. 49), we agree with Petitioner that such claim construction would “exclude[] the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent,” which is disfavored. Pet. Reply 11. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that “changeable independently” of the other domains does not require that the separate clocks in the plurality of domains be globally-asynchronous.” slip op. at 12

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

    “As both parties recognize, (PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 12), “[actual] [r]eduction to practice in the United States requires that the invention be embodied in tangible form.” Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, actual reduction to practice requires a showing of the invention in a physical or tangible form that shows every element. not sufficient. See Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence showing every element of the claims in physical or tangible form, as required, but rather contends that the Specification refers to the Paper, wherein the Paper stated that simulation using a software, SimpleScalar, was performed. PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the SimpleScalar simulation was not an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 12. As Petitioner points out, claim 1, for example, is directed to a “microprocessor,” wherein “Patent Owner has presented no evidence and has not alleged that any physical microprocessor was ever produced or operated.” Id. at 13; see PO Resp. 15–17. And as Petitioner points out, “Patent Owner has produced no evidence of any physical prototype of the claimed microprocessor that could have validated the simulation.” Pet. Reply 13–14. We agree with Petitioner that, at most, such simulation “demonstrated feasibility for prototyping of a microprocessor,” but not a tangible form of the microprocessor itself as required for an actual reduction to practice. Id. at 14; see also Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 1, 67 (1991) (“The feasibility of the optical alignment system may have been proven by the optical mock-up, but the optical mock-up was not a reduction to practice of the proposed MHU–145/M trailer.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “Here, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenMixed

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,089,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. / MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Bausch Health Ireland LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 27, 2026 · IPR2022-00722 · APJ Michael A Valek · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable because the unexpected results from the Glu3 substitution outweighed the prima facie obviousness showing; Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was granted.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “More specifically, the Federal Circuit identified “three reasons” why “the Board’s determination that the[se] experiments compared the claimed invention with the closest prior art lack[ed] adequate explanation” and instructed us to address these issues on remand. See CAFC Dec. 11–13. First, the Court stated we “should determine, based on the evidence put forward by the parties, whether plecanatide exhibits topoisomerism and whether the testing of the challenged claims should encompass both the active and inactive forms.” Id. at 12.3 Second, the Court instructed us to reconsider what the closest prior art compound is in view of Patent Owner’s “contention that highly pure A-form uroguanylin could be maintained as a lyophilized powder,” noting that “[i]f it is true . . . that uroguanylin can be maintained and therefore tested in its active A form as a lyophilized powder, that would support that the experiments [which were conducted in solution] did not use the closest prior art.” Id. Third, the Court observed that the Decision did not sufficiently address “whether the experiments submitted by [Patent Owner] actually used” the closest prior art and instructed the Board “to reevaluate the experimental evidence consistent” with the determinations noted above. Id. at 12–13.” slip op. at 3

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “In sum, we find that there is a sufficient nexus between Patent Owner’s results and the challenged claims and that those results are reasonably commensurate with the same. Accordingly, for all of reasons explained above, the unexpected results Patent Owner relies upon are probative of non-obviousness. E. Conclusion for Ground 1 Weighing the record as a whole in view of the findings and analysis above as well as our findings and analysis relating to Petitioner’s prima facie showing in the Decision, we conclude that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Currie and Li. The evidence suggesting that it would have been obvious to make the Glu3 substitution because it is a conservative substitution (see Dec. 20–38 (§ III.E.ii)) is substantially outweighed by Patent Owner’s comparatively strong evidence demonstrating unexpected results relating to improved interconversion stability, potency, and binding affinity from the Glu3 substitution. See Millennium Pharms., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Evidence of objective indicia [such as unexpected results] ‘can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record,’ and . . . enable[s] ‘the court to avert the trap of hindsight.’”) (quoting Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Indeed, the interconversion and potency categories of Patent Owner’s unexpected results showing are particularly strong such that even without the additional results in Liu, we would still reach the same ultimate conclusion on obviousness. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 56

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

    “same combination of Currie and Li for the limitations of claim 1 and the similar limitations recited in the other independent claims. In the Decision, we found that, based on the teachings in those references, an ordinarily-skilled artisan would have been motivated both to select human uroguanylin as a lead compound and modify its sequence by making a conservative Glu3 substitution for uroguanylin’s Asp3. Dec. 15–37. We did not, however, credit Petitioner’s other purported rationales for that modification. Id. at 34–37. Those findings were not disturbed on appeal. See CAFC Dec. 6–8 (rejecting 9 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective after the filing of the application that led to the ’786 patent. Therefore, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 10 U.S. Pat. 5,489,670, issued Feb. 6, 1996 (Ex. 1005) (“Currie”). 11 Z. Li et al., Purification, cDNA Sequence, and Tissue Distribution of Rat Uroguanylin, 68 Regulatory Peptides 45–56 (1997) (Ex. 1006) (“Li”). 12 R. Narayani et al., Polymer-coated Gelatin Capsules as Oral Delivery Devices and their Gastrointestinal Tract Behavior in Humans, 7 J. Biomater. Sci. Polymer Edn. 39–48 (1995) (Ex. 1007) (“Narayani”). 13 M. Campieri et al., Oral Budesonide is as Effective as Oral Prednisolone in Active Crohn’s Disease, 41 Gut 209–214 (1997) (Ex. 1008) (“Campieri”). 14 U.S. Pat. 5,359,030, issued Oct. 25, 1994 (Ex. 1009) (“Ekwuribe”). Patent Owner’s alternative arguments for affirmance). We incorporate by reference the portions of the Decision addressing Petitioner’s prima facie showing herein. See Dec. 8–37 (§§ III.A–D and E.i–ii). We consider the findings and explanation therein to the extent it bears on our analysis below.” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedGranted

    “motion. The American Peptide letter contains out of court statements from a third party submitted by the EPO opponent. The statements in the letter were not made under oath, nor is there evidence that Patent Owner was ever able to question the author of that letter or anyone else with personal knowledge of the statements therein. Petitioner argues that the American Peptide letter is evidence “to doubt that the ‘singular peak’ for uroguanylin in Liu represents the active topoisomer of uroguanylin” because it evidences that American Peptide “provided its customers with the ‘B’ (i.e., inactive) form of uroguanylin at the time.” Pet. Remand Resp. 25. That is, Petitioner relies on the American Peptide letter for the truth of the matters asserted therein. Such use plainly implicates the rule against hearsay and falls squarely within our prior reasoning for excluding the Currie submission portion of Exhibit 1067. We incorporate that analysis herein. See Dec. 61–72. Petitioner asserts that the American Peptide letter is admissible under the residual hearsay exception in FRE 807. MTE Opp. 3–5. We disagree. The American Peptide letter was submitted by the EPO opponent specifically for the purpose of opposing a foreign counterpart to the ’786 patent. We see no reason to distinguish it from the other materials previously excluded as hearsay in the Currie submission. Petitioner’s assertion that it contains sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness because it was “provided by a neutral third-party” (American Peptide) and “an individual having first- hand knowledge, [American Peptide Company’s] VP of sales and marketing” is speculation. See id. at 3–4. Based on the record before us, Patent Owner has never been afforded an opportunity to examine anyone regarding the statements in this letter or even confirm that it is, in fact, a letter from the American Peptide Company. The mere fact that it was submitted in a foreign patent proceeding does not make it any more trustworthy than any other untested assertion offered by an adverse party in a legal proceeding. For these reasons, we grant Patent Owner’s motion to exclude page 86 of Exhibit 1067.” slip op. at 58

  Patent outcomesUS 7,041,786 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 7,041,786
• Tiktok Inc. v. Ntech Properties, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01342 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 and 6–10 are unpatentable as obvious over each asserted ground; claim 5 was not shown unpatentable because the petitions failed to establish its additional feed and time-period limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1b, 1c, and 1e of claim 1 and in claims 4 and 5 of the ’753 patent. Patent Owner contends that the plain and ordinary meaning of “feed” is “one or more associated media elements.” See, e.g., PO Resp. 4. However, as discussed below, this alleged plain and ordinary meaning of feed is not supported by the claim language, the specification of the ’753 patent, or dictionary definitions of feed as contended by Patent Owner. We reject this contention and the related contentions that the cited art may be distinguished from the claims of the ’753 patent based on the recited term “feed.” Patent Owner relies on the language of claim 1 to support its” slip op. at 13

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ definitions are similar, although we observe that Patent Owner proposes that the person of ordinary skill would have a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent or professional experience, whereas Petitioner proposes that such a person would have both a degree and experience. Neither party presents any arguments relating or referring to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Determining the level of ordinary skill in the art involves various factors, 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) (citation omitted). The prior art of record also reflects the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Almeroth and is consistent with the ’753 patent and the asserted prior art. However, our obviousness analysis would be the same under either party’s assessment. See Ex. 2014 ¶ 17 (Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Goodrich, stating that “I note that my definition of a POSITA is similar to that of Dr. Almeroth” and “My opinions in this declaration would not change were I to adopt the definition of a POSITA offered by Dr. Almeroth.”).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “16 With regard to claim 5, the Petition cites paragraphs 97 and 98 of the Almeroth Declaration (Ex. 1002). See Pet. 28–29. We have considered the cited paragraphs in the Almeroth Declatation and found that they consist of nothing more than the inadequate and conclusory contentions in the Petition preceded by, in paragraph 97, “[i]n my opinion” and “it is my opinion” and, in paragraph 98, “[i]t is also my opinion.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 97, 98. As related to claim 5, we accord the Almeroth Declaration little or no weight. See 37 C.F.R. § 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.”). that might become out-of-date before a user accesses access [sic] them. Ex. 1003, 11:49–58 (emphasis added). The cited passage in Whitehead mentioning “near real-time” does not support finding that Whitehead teaches or suggests the elements recited in claim 5.” slip op. at 39

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

    “Petitioner contends, “[a] POSITA would have modified Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm (running on Marcus ’904’s receiver) for receiving, selecting, ordering, and assembling different media streams (both for content and advertising).” Pet. 33. Petitioner supports this contention by articulating the following reasons for the asserted modification of Whitehead’s mixing server 130 to incorporate Marcus ’904’s algorithm: “makes it more likely the system will identify content best suited for a particular user,” “allows for more targeted advertising and/or an opportunity to maximize revenue,” “improves Whitehead’s ability to target content and advertising to a particular user,” “would unlock new revenue sources for Whitehead,” “Marcus ’904’s content selection and concatenation algorithm improves Whitehead’s efficiency,” “[b]oth Whitehead and Marcus ’904 generate custom media programming based on a user profile,” “incorporating Marcus ’904’s teachings would not require redesigning Whitehead’s architecture and instead merely supplements Whitehead’s disclosure,” and “Petitioner’s proposed modification can be implemented entirely in software and does not require any hardware modifications. Indeed, Whitehead acknowledges that such modifications are possible. EX1003 at 19:64-20:6, 22:26-40.” Id. at 33–35 (citing Ex. 1002 (Almeroth Decl.) ¶¶ 110–115) (emphasis omitted). Based on this undisputed showing, we find that one of ordinary skill would have had a motivation to combine the teachings of Whitehead and Marcus ’904 as asserted in the Petition with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 48

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,753 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,753
• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–13 and 15–16 on anticipation and obviousness grounds, and claim 14 on obviousness over Choulis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’164 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with organic optoelectronic light-emitting devices. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice versa. Pet. 12. Patent Owner repeatedly refers to “a POSITA” without addressing the definition of that term or contesting Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Resp. 1, 2 n.1, 3, 8, 9, 15–21, 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44–49, 51–57, 61, 62 (bare references to “a POSITA”). Neither party indicates that the ultimate result on patentability would change depending on the definition selected. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is not contested, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1004, (code 57); Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1008, code (57); Ex. 1009, code (57) (abstracts of the references asserted in the patentability challenges).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “because no information raised during the trial phase of this review changes the calculus: First and foremost, the plain terms of claim 1 include no language from which we reasonably can impose limits on the phrase “matrix material” as urged by Patent Owner. In addition, the specification includes no special definition of that phrase that supports importing Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing limitation into the claim. Furthermore, we are directed to no disclaimer of claim scope during patent prosecution that would support Patent Owner’s twice-rejected argument that the phrase “matrix material” in claim 1 excludes embedded dopants and dispersed agglomerations. And the extrinsic evidence advanced by Patent Owner during this review is ineffective to override the clear interpretation of “matrix material” that is established by the intrinsic evidence. Reply 1–7.10” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We find that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. We agree with Petitioner, in that regard, that Choulis explicitly teaches “using spin-coating as a method for depositing materials, which involves a simultaneous application process” as required by claim 13. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1044 ¶ 45).16 We 15 Petitioner raises Djobo as a background reference supporting that Choulis anticipates deposition of PVK by evaporation. Pet. 41. Patent Owner counters that Djobo, to the contrary, shows that Choulis does not teach deposition of PVK by evaporation. Resp. 48. In other words, both parties cite Djobo in connection with the ground based on anticipation by Choulis. Against that backdrop, we determine that Patent Owner waives any argument that Petitioner improperly cites Djobo as a background reference in support of the anticipation challenge, which is based on Choulis alone. Resp. 48 (nowhere asserting that the challenge is deficient on that basis). That waiver arises because no argument, in that regard, is raised in Patent Owner’s Response see Inst. Dec. 34 (“The Board shall deemed waived any issue not raised by Patent Owner in a timely response to the Petition . . . .”). 16 Patent Owner’s statement that “spin coating tends to cause phase separation” is not developed adequately on this record and, therefore, is further agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “has not contested this point.” Resp. 48. “Therefore, there is no genuine dispute regarding the unpatentability of claim 13,” although Patent Owner raises “arguments concerning evaporation, which is a distinct process from spin-coating” relevant to the additional limitations of claim 14. Reply 16. We determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. Patent Owner, however, has the better position on whether Choulis anticipates claim 14, which “includes the requirement of applying matrix materials via evaporation coating.” Reply 16. Petitioner seems to abandon that challenge in the Reply by raising arguments that appear, on this record, to bear exclusively on whether the subject matter of claim 14 would have been obvious over Choulis.17 Id. at 16–17. Those arguments are insufficient to counter Patent Owner’s reasons why Choulis does not anticipate the “evaporation coating” limitation of claim 14. Compare id., with Resp. 48. On this record, therefore, we determine that Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 14. unpersuasive to persuade us “that Choulis does not have three matrix materials.” Sur-reply 15. That argument runs counter to Choulis’s explicit, intrinsic disclosures, which illustrate (Ex. 1004, Fig. 4) and describe (id. ¶ 30) an organic light emitting layer composed of three matrix materials. See Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 4, ¶ 30); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88 (persuasive declaration testimony of Dr. Holmes, cited at Pet. 24–25). 17 There is some confusion on this point, given that both parties sometimes collapse, into a single argument, whether Choulis anticipates or renders obvious claim 1. Compare Resp. 48, with Reply 16–17.” slip op. at 35

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

    “On this record, therefore, we determine that Choulis, at minimum, suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized PMMA as a suitable alternative to PVK in Choulis’s Figure 4 embodiment, notwithstanding any differences raised by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. Patent Owner’s argument that no disclosure in Choulis suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have found it desirable to use PMMA in place of PVK in Choulis’s devices” misses the mark, where Choulis includes both PMMA and PVK in lists of materials suitable for use as host or matrix materials. Resp. 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. “Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Even if Choulis does not expressly disclose substituting PMMA for PVK in the Figure 4 embodiment, “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make that substitution.” Reply 10 (citing Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 100; Ex. 1044 ¶ 23)). The suggestion for that substitution is set forth unambiguously in Choulis’s listing of both “PVK” and “PMMA” as materials suitable for use as a first “host” material in Choulis’s organic functional layer; that is, “the light emitting layer” that is “described above” in Figure 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. ii. Alternative Reasoning for Replacing PVK with PMMA Patent Owner counterargues that using PPMA in place of PVK would have been understood to “upset the hole and electron balance,” as well as “affect hole-charge recombination,” and “degrade the performance of the resulting OLED system.” Resp. 37. Petitioner responds with evidence that “it would have been a routine task for” an ordinarily skilled artisan “to optimize the composition of each component within the light-emitting layer to achieve the desired charge balance.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24). Petitioner’s response brings to light a second reason why an ordinarily” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,723,164 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,723,164
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–13, 15–17, 19, 20, 23–26, 29, 32–35, 37, 38, and 40–42 are unpatentable under §103; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.9 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 7. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary.” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, we find that Hackborn clearly discloses an embodiment in which swiping the finger, not just mere contact without motion (i.e., a tap), moves the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Hackborn explicitly states: “In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user is swiping her finger across a touch-sensitive display screen of the computing device. In response, the blades of grass 105 displayed in the area of the screen swiped by the user are caused to bend or sway as if contacted by the user’s finger during the swipe.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Because this description expressly refers to “swiping” or moving the finger “across” the display screen, it does not encompass a mere tap, or contact by the user that does not move on the display screen. If a single-tap-contact embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper is disclosed, it would be in an embodiment different from the swiping embodiment. Here, Petitioner is relying only on the swiping embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Hackborn discloses no need to distinguish a tap from a swipe. We find that in the swipe embodiment, it is important to distinguish a tap from a swipe, and thus there is reason, as Petitioner contends, for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westerman for implementation details on how to make such a distinction. Specifically, for recognizing a swipe from a tap, Westerman describes determining whether the finger path displacement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 61), and examining the initial velocity of the contact at contact’s touchdown (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 62). As for Patent Owner’s noting that in several instances Hackborn generally refers to a user’s finger contacting items on the wallpaper, that does not undermine Petitioner’s positions, because in the “swipe” embodiment, the referenced contact would be a swipe, and not a single tap without any motion of the finger.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 39. This reasoning is unpersuasive. The reference in claims 17, 37, and 38 to “the at least some of the plurality of images” identifies the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 1 on which claim 17 depends, and the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 23 on which claims 37 and 38 depend. According to independent claims 1 and 23, however, the displaying in sequence of the at least some of the plurality of images must be based in part on the magnitude of the first contact. Pet. vii–vii, xiv. The social networking posts and images contained therein images, identified by Petitioner as being displayed in sequence by automatically moving one-by-one, have not been shown by Petitioner as being displayed based in part of the magnitude of the user contact, as Patent Owner correctly notes. PO Resp. 32–35. In its Reply, Petitioner attempts to change its reasoning for claims 17, 37, and 38 by shifting to rely on the background wallpaper of grass swaying in response to user swiping. Reply 13–14. This shift in reliance is a belated new argument and not entitled to consideration. We decline to consider it. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17, 37, and 38 would have been obvious over Hackborn and Westerman. E.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,755 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,755
• 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

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.