• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00545 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Neiss or Neiss and Hirasago; claims 7 and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering (including automotive engineering), civil engineering (transportation systems), physics, or a related field, and at least four years of experience (or the academic equivalent) in the field of transportation systems.” Pet. 2–3. Petitioner contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1–19, 24–26; Ex. 1004). Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re 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).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s interpretation of column 13, lines 40–44 of the ’161 patent to mean that a route may not have both an ending position or an intermediate position, but will have at least one of these positions. See PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner interprets “typically” in “[t]he route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position . . . , an ending position, . . . , and any intermediate positions between the initial and the final positions” to apply to either “an ending position” or “any intermediate positions” (that is, an intermediate destination) but not to both. We see no grammatical reason to limit “typically” in this manner. Rather, the plain meaning of the quoted sentence suggests that, although not typical, a route may not contain an ending position, be that a final position or an intermediate position.” slip op. at 17

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained adequately how a driver’s previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Rather than explaining how the Schramm-Clapper system would sum efficient speeds, Petitioner merely asserts that “the set speeds for the energy-optimum route’s segments correspond to a plurality of efficient speeds.” Pet. 78 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, makes substantially the same assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 263. But neither Petitioner nor its witness explains adequately how a previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Patent Owner presents persuasive arguments as to why these speeds are not efficient. See PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 198–204, 208–214). Patent Owner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Hoff’s testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 211–218. Stated differently, although Petitioner explains how the Schramm-Clapper system would select the best summation of calculated energy values required to travel at selected speeds from among Schramm’s routes, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the selected speeds are efficient speeds. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 or its dependent claims 3 and 6–9 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Schramm and Clapper. Petitioner relies on the same contentions regarding the identical language recited in independent claim 10 (see Pet. 93), and so, for the same reasons, has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 10 or its dependent claims 12, 13, and 15–18 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Schramm and Clapper.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained adequately how a driver’s previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Rather than explaining how the Schramm-Clapper system would sum efficient speeds, Petitioner merely asserts that “the set speeds for the energy-optimum route’s segments correspond to a plurality of efficient speeds.” Pet. 78 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, makes substantially the same assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 263. But neither Petitioner nor its witness explains adequately how a previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Patent Owner presents persuasive arguments as to why these speeds are not efficient. See PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 198–204, 208–214). Patent Owner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Hoff’s testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 211–218. Stated differently, although Petitioner explains how the Schramm-Clapper system would select the best summation of calculated energy values required to travel at selected speeds from among Schramm’s routes, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the selected speeds are efficient speeds.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,972,161 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,972,161
• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00543 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8 and 18 were not shown unpatentable because Newstrom’s database was not shown to be remote.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not contest Dr. Morellas’s proposed definition or proffer a definition of its own. See generally PO Resp.; see also Ex. 2007 ¶ 43 (setting forth a substantially similar definition as Dr. Morellas). We find Dr. Morellas’s unopposed definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re 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).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that claim 1 requires that a route from the vehicle’s current position to a final destination must be known. See PO Resp. 7. Initially, claim 1 does not recite “destination.” Instead, claim 1 recites only “determining a segment of a vehicle route.” Ex. 1001, 27:44 (emphasis added). Nor does the ’399 patent specification require the interpretation proffered by Patent Owner. Notably, the ’399 patent discloses that the power management device may rely on historical route information to optimize the energy used to travel each segment of a route. Ex. 1001, 17:39–43, 17:64–67. Such reliance on historical data beneficially reduces the amount of required computing power. Id. at 18:5–9. Under this approach, “the location of the vehicle is periodically determined” and “used to determine[] a historical segment corresponding to the current location.” Id. at 18:30–33 (emphasis added). If the vehicle has moved into a new route segment, the historical data is queried to determine the most efficient speed to travel for the current segment. Id. at 18:39–56. Thus, the ’399 patent explicitly discloses calculating and applying power to a vehicle based on the route segment in which the vehicle is currently traveling. See id. at 18:64–67 (“The flowchart shown in FIG. 5 illustrates a continuous process, in which the power management device can determine a probable optimal speed as the current segment changes (e.g., as the vehicle moves).”), Fig. 5. Furthermore, the ’399 patent explains that “[t]he route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position . . . , an ending position, . . . , and any intermediate positions between the initial and the final positions.” Id. at 14:6–10 (emphasis added). Notably, the ’399 patent sometimes refers to the “entire route,” indicating that use of “route” in the claims does not necessarily mean the entire route. Indeed, the ’399 patent explains that, “[i]n some variations, the entire route (or the entire predicted route) may be divided up into N segments” and “[i]n some variations, probable optimal speeds may be identified for the entire route.” Ex. 1001, 14:38–39, 19:1–2 (emphases added). This strongly suggests that, in some other variations, the entire route is not divided into segments and optimal speeds are not identified for the entire route, further indicating that the recited “route” is not the entire path the vehicle will take. Therefore, we find that the ’399 patent contemplates routes that, although not typical, do not include an ending position. Moreover, to the extent a destination is required, the ’399 patent discloses that the destination can be derived based on the vehicle’s location or driving history, and there can be multiple “likely destinations” and the system can “continuously infer the vehicle’s destination” and the probable destination “may constantly change to revise the destination” while the vehicle is traveling along the route. Ex. 1001, 12:16–59. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, neither the claim language nor the specification of the ’399 patent requires the route be predetermined or extend from the vehicle’s current position to a final destination.” slip op. at 16

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

    “have been obvious in view of Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki. Pet. 4–62. In support of its showing, Petitioner relies upon the Morellas Declaration. Id. (citing Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record and determine that, for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–12, 15, 16, 19, and 20 would have been obvious in view of Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki and that Petitioner has set forth reasoning with rational underpinning why it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of these references.” slip op. at 10

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

    “limiting, Hongo and Niki support Petitioner’s contentions. We determine that Petitioner sets forth reasoning with rational underpinning as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Hongo and Niki. See, e.g., Pet. 21–23 (arguing that the modification “would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success” and “Niki’s teachings and/or suggestions improve vehicle control in the Hongo vehicle”).” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,882,399 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,882,399
• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00499 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17 are unpatentable: claims 1–16 as obvious over Kudo-325 and Kudo-066, and claim 17 as obvious over those references and Tryon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Thus, for all of the above reasons, we decline to construe “data, regarding multiple route segments” to require the data include information regarding the route the vehicle traveled between the starting and end points of the route segment. Rather, this is but one example of the type of data included within the scope of the claim. We further make final our preliminary finding that the claim explicitly allows for data, regarding a route segment to be stored in the memory at “different points in time along a route segment.” We determine that no other terms need to be construed. See Realtime” slip op. at 7

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

    “regarding route segments because it does not identify “what occurred—or what path the vehicle traveled—between the different nodes in Kudo 325’s transition state data.” PO Resp. 9. However, we have rejected herein Patent Owner’s implicit claim construction argument that such additional information is required. Though the exact the path traveled between a starting and end point is data regarding a route segment, the starting and end points are also data regarding a route segment. As acknowledged by Patent Owner, Kudo 325’s transition state data includes the starting and end points of route segments, as well as “a list of (or pointers to) all other nodes to which the vehicle previously traveled from that node.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 93). After our review of the evidence and arguments, summarized above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination teaches or suggests “data, regarding multiple route segments,” and “data, regarding multiple sequences of route segments” as required by claim 1. d) Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Kudo- 325 and Kudo-066 teaches or suggests claims 1, 15 and 16.” slip op. at 18

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

    “be motivated to implement Kudo-325’s historical accumulation database at the server. Pet. 73, 68, 70. Petitioner argues that Kudo-325 teaches that “a part of the functions that a car navigation system has may be provided in a server on a network.” Id. at 68 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 75). Petitioner further argues that doing so would beneficially allow remotely stored historical data to be accessible to multiple vehicles. Id. at 70 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 203). Petitioner argues that housing this information at the server is a known technique and would yield predictable results. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 204). Petitioner argues that Kudo-325 teaches storing sensor data samples including historical data at the historical accumulation database. Pet. 73–74 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 14, 75, 78, 87–88, 90–92, 94, 96, Fig. 3; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 218–220). Petitioner further argues that “a POSITA would have understood data in the history accumulation database (historical data) to be provided to the car navigation system (present said historical data to said device) to enable generation of transition state information.” Id. at 74 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 221).” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 10,829,002 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,829,002
• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2025-00152 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 6, and 11 are obvious over Sutardja, Donnelly, and Letendre.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Donnelly’s GUI into Sutardja’s display to more easily and conveniently communicate Sutardja’s state of charge information to a user in a graphical format. Id. at 35 (citing Ex. 1011 ¶ 242; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 157–159. Petitioner also argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to combine Donnelly’s GUI depicting a bar graph indicating the charged and uncharged capacity of a vehicle battery into Sutardja according to well-known methods that would have yielded predictable results. Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 160). Petitioner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably expected to successfully combine Donnelly’s GUI as it relates to the state of charge into Sutardja’s vehicle, which already processed information about the state of charge of its battery and included a display showing charging parameters. Id. (citing Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 242, 243, Ex. 1003 ¶ 161).” slip op. at 14

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

    “includes “at least” a bar graph as shown in Figure 7. Id. at 4. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s “proposed construction should be rejected” because it “would wrongly import embodiments from the specification.” Prelim. Resp. 20–21. Patent Owner also contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that the “unitary charge indicator is not limited to a bar graph representation.” Id. at 21. We discern no dispute over the meaning of “unitary vehicle charge indicator” because Petitioner does not argue that the term is “limited” to the embodiment shown in Figure 7, only that the term “at least includes” that embodiment. Patent Owner does not contend otherwise.” slip op. at 8

  • Strike new argumentDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by impermissibly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to avoid the word count limit. Prelim. Resp. 46–49. Patent Owner contends that the Andrews declaration is “over 140 pages” with a substantive portion containing “multiples of the allotted 14000 words” to a petition. Id. at 47. Patent Owner contends that “the only way to potentially understand the Petitioner’s proposed unpatentability challenges is to wade through the extraneous pages cited within the Andrews Declaration.” Id. Patent Owner also complains that Andrews supports his testimony relating to Petitioner’s first challenge by citing “many additional references in addition to references actually ‘relied upon’ by Petitioner.” Id. at 47–48. We discern no violation of Rule 42.6(a)(3). To the contrary, that Mr. Andrews’s supports his extensive explanations of his opinions with citations to dozens of pieces of objective evidence, is a feature, not a bug of his testimony. Mr. Andrews, and Petitioner by extension, leave virtually none of the substance of his testimony unsupported by objective evidence, a practice that we applaud.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,990,788
• Klipsta Pty Ltd v. Lindsay AlbaneseInstituted
  PTAB · Jul 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00346 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is anticipated by KR ’458.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition and the evidence of record, we conclude that the information demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’047 Patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) “would be a regular consumer/shopper with a rudimentary knowledge of the use of magnetic clips and a basic understanding of clip construction.” Pet. 13. We find, for purposes of this Decision, that the ’047 Patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of skill reflected in these references and in the ’047 Patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 10

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

    “The ’047 Patent discloses that in addition to being separate straps, the rear strap and the front strap “can be formed from a single piece of material.” Ex. 1001, 3:40–44, 5:24–32, 10: 18–25. In particular, Figures 5A–5B of the ’047 Patent illustrate rear strap 510 and front strap 520 as being “formed from a single piece of material that is folded approximately in half where a first half can be the rear strap 510 and a second half can be the front strap 520.” Id. at 10:18–21, Figs. 5A–5B. Indeed, Patent Owner acknowledges “[i]t should be noted that forming the first and second straps from a single piece of material is well within the scope of the claimed invention.” Ex. 1007, 5 (citing the ’047 Patent at 3:37–44). Moreover, we note the positions taken by the parties are consistent with the fact that claim 13, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein the first strap and the second strap are formed from a single folded strap.” Ex. 1001, 14:47–48. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s construction of “the second strap joined to the first strap” to include “a single piece of material.”” slip op. at 12

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

    “The ’047 Patent discloses that the hook is used to attach the hat holder to another object. Ex. 1001, 8:31–33. In reference to Figures 3A–3C, the ’047 Patent discloses that “the hook 340 is formed from a strap of flexible material. The flexible material can be, for example, nylon, leather or leatherette. The hook 340 can be formed from the same material as the front or rear straps 310 and 320, respectively.” Id. at 8:26–31, Figs. 3A–3C; see also id. at 6:58–7:3. This disclosure is indicative that the term “hook” can be a strap in contrast to a structure that is typically regarded as being a hook, as shown in Figures 1A–1C, 2A–2C, 4A–4B, 6A–6B, 7, 8 of the ’047 Patent. Additionally, we note that consistent with the above disclosure, claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein the hook is [a] flexible strap having a closure.” Ex. 1001, 14:41–42. We, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s construction of a “hook” to include “structure that serves to attach the hat holder to another object.”” slip op. at 13

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,413,047
• Sram, LLC v. Fox Factory, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00216 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–15, and 19 are unpatentable, including by anticipation over Gartner and Nakaya and obviousness over Gartner and Kodama and Nakaya and Kodama.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the invention of the ’223 patent “would have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and at least three years’ experience in vehicle suspension technology, or a Master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering with a concentration in design of vehicle suspension technology and/or shock absorbers.” Pet. 5–6, n.1. Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. Based on the complete record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “As Petitioner discerns, claim 1 does not recite “dampening only at the end portion of a compression stroke.” Rather, claim 1 expressly requires “a fluid flow path formed in the bottom out cup for providing fluid communication from the cup to the compression portion of the chamber during a compression stroke of the damper[.]” Ex. 1001, 7:44–47 (emphasis added). In this way, claim 1 contemplates that the bottom out cup operates “during a compression stroke of the damper,” rather than only at the end portion of a compression stroke or only near an end of a compression stroke. Similarly, independent claims 11 and 19 do not require that the bottom out cup provide damping only at the end or near the end of a compression stroke. See Ex. 1001, 8:8–23, 8:61–9:5. Claim 11 recites “a bottom out cup in fluid communication with the damper chamber” and “an adjustable fluid flow path formed in the cup, the flow path providing fluid communication between the cup and the primary compression chamber in a compression stroke of the damper.” Id. (emphasis added). Claim 19 also recites “in a compression stroke of the damper” and does not limit damping to the end, or near the end of a compression stroke. See id. at 8:61–9:5 (“in to the compression chamber at a first rate with the valve in a first position and at a second rate with the valve in a second position where the first rate is greater than the second rate and the valve includes an adjuster accessible from an exterior of the shock absorber.”) (emphasis added). The ’223 patent as a whole also does not describe the bottom out cup as damping or providing dampening only at the end or near the end of the compression stroke, but more broadly as during the compression stroke. With reference to Figure 3A, the ’223 patent discloses that bottom out piston 250 enters “the bottom out cup 275 during a compression stroke of the shock absorber.” Ex. 1001, 3:38–50 (emphasis added). Additionally, we observe that the ’223 patent discloses “[a]s the piston completely engages the cup 275, dampening is increased.” Id. at 3:64–65 (emphasis added). We understand this to mean that bottom out dampening occurs at the end of the compression stroke, but may also occur “during” the compression stroke and “increase” as the piston completely engages the bottom out cup.” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “Considering Gartner’s disclosure, we credit Dr. Wang’s testimony because his testimony is better supported by the reference. Dr. Wang configured for providing damping . . . [and] bottom out cup 260, 460 (pink) is formed at the end of compression portion 26.4 (light red) and provides additional damping to reduce bottoming out[.]” Ex. 1019 ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 1010, Abstract, annotated Fig. 12A, 1:15–33, 9:33–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 179– 180, 188–190; Pet. 108–110). As discussed above, internal shock absorber 400 contains cup-shaped compression volume 460.4 that provides additional damping after the initial portion of the compression stroke. See Ex. 1010, 7:49–51, 7:55–56, 7:62–67, 9:20–24. Gartner further discloses these features as accommodating or protecting from bottoming out. See id. code (57). Patent Owner’s position and Dr. Slocum’s testimony otherwise, requires Gartner to expressly invoke the term “bottom out cup” instead of compression volume. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 104–106. We disagree that is necessary. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find that Gartner discloses a “cup-shaped feature configured for providing dampening at the end of a compression stroke.” Gartner discloses that internal shock absorber 400 provides damping after the initial portion of the stroke and as compression continues, compression volume 460.4 reduces as part of that damping. Ex. 1010, 7:49–51, 7:55–56, 7:62–67, 9:20–24.” slip op. at 31

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

    “Id. code (57) (emphases added). Though Gartner does not explicitly employ the term “bottom out cup,” it is not lost upon us that the internal shock absorber, e.g., shock absorber 400, functions during/in a compression stroke (e.g., after the initial portion of the compression stroke), to provide dampening while protecting from bottoming out. Considering Gartner’s disclosure, we credit Dr. Wang’s testimony because his testimony is better supported by the reference. Dr. Wang configured for providing damping . . . [and] bottom out cup 260, 460 (pink) is formed at the end of compression portion 26.4 (light red) and provides additional damping to reduce bottoming out[.]” Ex. 1019 ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 1010, Abstract, annotated Fig. 12A, 1:15–33, 9:33–48; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 179– 180, 188–190; Pet. 108–110). As discussed above, internal shock absorber 400 contains cup-shaped compression volume 460.4 that provides additional damping after the initial portion of the compression stroke. See Ex. 1010, 7:49–51, 7:55–56, 7:62–67, 9:20–24. Gartner further discloses these features as accommodating or protecting from bottoming out. See id. code (57). Patent Owner’s position and Dr. Slocum’s testimony otherwise, requires Gartner to expressly invoke the term “bottom out cup” instead of compression volume. See Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 104–106. We disagree that is necessary. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find that Gartner discloses a “cup-shaped feature configured for providing dampening at the end of a compression stroke.” Gartner discloses that internal shock absorber 400 provides damping after the initial portion of the stroke and as compression continues, compression volume 460.4 reduces as part of that damping. Ex. 1010, 7:49–51, 7:55–56, 7:62–67, 9:20–24.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,550,223 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,550,223
• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCInstituted
  PTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00032 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 are obvious.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “At least because of the material differences in Ferro compared to Hafner ’174 and the reliance on Donnelly and Letendre, which were not before the Office, we find that the same or substantially the same art was not previously presented to the Office.” slip op. at 12

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

    “information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. It is true that Oyobe focuses on alerting a vehicle user to a low state of charge by raising a physical indicator on the exterior of the vehicle (i.e., the “informing apparatus 102) when the battery is low. Ex. 1005 ¶ 40. Oyobe explains: even in such a case where the vehicle user exit from the vehicle without checking the SOC of main battery B on the console panel, informing apparatus 102 disposed at a location where it can easily be seen outside the vehicle by the vehicle user allows the vehicle user to easily recognize the necessity of charging main battery B. Id. However, Oyobe’s focus on raising a physical indicator on the vehicle as a reminder does not detract from Oyobe’s unambiguous disclosure that its vehicle also includes position detecting apparatus 108 that uses wireless communication to “sense that the vehicle is parked at the location where charging equipment is installed.” Id. ¶ 142. Oyobe’s ability to sense whether a vehicle is parked next to a charger allows Oyobe’s system to remind the user to charge the battery by raising low battery indicator 102 while the vehicle is located next to a charger but not “where charging cannot be performed.” Id. ¶¶ 143–145. Accordingly, regardless of the reason that Oyobe provides for including its vehicle position detecting apparatus, Oyobe undeniably describes a vehicle sensor that can provide “information indicative of a presence of an electric vehicle in a parking space” near a charging station. And, we find that Petitioner has sufficiently explained why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use Oyobe’s sensor in Ferro’s electric vehicle to “advantageously allows a user to instruct charging without exiting the vehicle and physically interacting with a charging station.” Pet. 11–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 150–152).” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Third, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner violates Rule 42.6(a)(3) by improperly incorporating arguments from Mr. Andrews’s Declaration into the Petition to establish that Oyobe teaches sensing the presence of a vehicle in a “parking space” as recited in limitation 1e. Prelim. Resp. 42–43 (citing Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 178–181)). Patent Owner contends that Mr. Andrews’s citation of four references that are not expressly cited in the Petition, Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059, implicitly demonstrates that the Petition incorporates arguments by reference. Id. Not only do we find Petitioner’s reliance on Mr. Andrews’s testimony to be persuasive, but we also find that Mr. Andrews’s citations to Exhibits 1018, 1053, 1057, and 1059 provide strong support for his testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that Oyobe teaches that its vehicle is in a parking space when Oyobe’s apparatus 108 detects that “the vehicle is parked” near charging equipment. Far from improperly incorporating arguments by reference, we find Mr. Andrews’s citation to objective evidence to support his opinions on how an ordinarily skilled artisan would read Oyobe’s disclosure to be preferred and highly persuasive.” slip op. at 21

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,563,338
• Google LLC v. Ecofactor, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · May 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00097 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Hildebrand alone or with Shah.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). At this preliminary stage, we determine whether the information presented in the Petition shows a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that at least one of the challenged claims would have” slip op. at 4

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

    “Petitioner further identifies that Shah similarly teaches calculating operational efficiency values for an HVAC system and using these values “to monitor the integrity of the thermal system.” Id. at 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006, 4:63–5:10). Petitioner matches these and other teachings in combination with Hildebrand to each of the limitations of claim 1. Id. at 17– 10:32–36, 11:59–61, 12:2–20, Fig. 1; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 61–140). Petitioner also provides an extensive discussion of the reasons to combine Shah with the system of Hildebrand, such as to avoid being limited, like Hildebrand, to comparisons of system efficiencies between time periods with the same outside temperature. Id. at 19; see also id. at 18–24. We have reviewed the Petition and supporting evidence and determine that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable over Hildebrand alone or in combination with Shah.3” slip op. at 6

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

    “C. Claim Construction We construe the claims in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning 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). No terms need to be expressly construed at this time.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 11,835,394
• Arista Networks, Inc. v. Orckit CorporationInstitution denied
  PTAB · Mar 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01238 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 14–16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Based on the record before us, Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teach or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as recited in claim 14. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of independent claim 14 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith. Due to the dependency of claims 15 and 16 from claim 14, and for the same reasons as those explained above addressing claim 1, based on the record before us Petitioner does not set forth sufficient argument and evidence to demonstrate that the combination of Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 15 and 16. Accordingly, there is not a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing that the subject matter of dependent claims 15 and 16 would have been obvious over Doshi, Guichard, and Ashwood Smith.” slip op. at 24

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We find that Petitioner does not show sufficiently that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Petitioner implicitly construes “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity” to require “calculat[ing] the probability of concurrent failure of the paths.” Pet. 77; see also id. (“calculating such probability for two paths”), 78 (also implicitly construing “digital logic . . . configured to determine an entity cost of said plurality of transport entity descriptors” to require “cost calculation”). We agree with Petitioner’s implicit construction because it is consistent with the claim language and the ’821 Patent Specification which discloses a simultaneous failure probability (SFP) function (Eq. 1) and SFP values calculated by a concurrent failure probability matrix. See Ex. 1001, 3:44–47, 6:5–11, 6:39–40. Similar to Doshi’s description of the probability of failure in terms of “very insignificant” (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 40), Petitioner’s cited disclosures of Ashwood Smith describe the probability of failure at a common point in terms of “fairly low” (see Ex. 1037, 3:21–23) “highly unlikely” (see Ex. 1037, 10:32), and “below a certain level” (see Ex. 1037, 11:7–8). Although Petitioner asserts that Ashwood Smith’s method determines the probability of failure at a common point between two paths (see Pet. 67), the teachings of Ashwood Smith cited by Petitioner do not support a finding that Ashwood Smith discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured to determine the probability of concurrent failure,” as implicitly construed by Petitioner to require calculating a probability of concurrent failure of a working entity and a protection entity. Petitioner also cites Ashwood Smith’s disclosure suggesting a possible refinement to the disclosed method that would take into account the actual probability of failure at a common point shared by two or more working paths. See Ex. 1037, 10:21–24. Petitioner, however, does not direct us to any disclosure in Ashwood of digital logic configured to determine or calculate the probability of failure at a common point. See Pet. 66–69, 74–78. Instead, Petitioner overlooks Ashwood Smith’s disclosure that the probability of failure at a common point is allocated (i.e., distributed, assigned, given out) by the data transport network operator. See Ex. 1037, 11:4–6. This allocation of failure probability by the data transport operator is similar to the ’821 Patent Specification’s disclosure that “[s]pan failure probabilities may be assigned, for example, manually by a network operator based on network knowledge” and “[n]ode failure probabilities may be configured by the operator, typically based on vendor-provided mean time between failure (MTBF) parameters, and on infrastructure failure probability, for example, power failure probability.” Ex. 1001, 6:20–23, 6:29–33. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 234–237) that Ashwood Smith teaches determining a probability of concurrent failure of two paths because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a).” slip op. at 22

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “IPR2023–00402, we find that Doshi does not disclose, teach, or suggest “digital logic . . . configured to determine a probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity,” as required by claim 14. Although Doshi discloses selecting a subset of path pairs based on cost (see Ex. 1005 ¶ 144, Fig. 11), and that disjoint path pairs may have very insignificant probability of failure, Petitioner does not direct us to where Doshi discloses, teaches, or suggests “digital logic . . . configured determine the probability of concurrent failure of the primary path and the restoration path.” See Pet. 67, 74–76. We also give little weight to Petitioner’s witness Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 255) that determining path disjointedness corresponds to determining a probability of concurrent failure is entitled to little weight because, for the same reasons, it is not supported by an underlying factual basis. 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.”). For example, Petitioner does not provide a factual basis for equating a determination of path disjointedness (e.g., strictly disjoint, partially disjoint) with a determination of the probability of concurrent failure of the primary and restoration path. We also give little weight to Dr. Min’s testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶ 258) that Doshi’s disclosure of selection logic configured to perform the method of Figure 11 teaches logic configured to determine probability of concurrent failure of said working entity and said protection entity because it also is not supported by an underlying factual basis. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 256–258; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 142–145; Fig. 11.” slip op. at 18

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(‘POSITA’) would have had a working knowledge of network communications and multiprotocol label switching (‘MPLS’) techniques available at the time.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–51). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of network communications and been knowledgeable regarding MPLS techniques.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 51). Patent Owner does not address the skill level of a person of ordinary of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. For the purpose of determining whether to institute trial, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’821 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,830,821
• Mastercard Incorporated And Mastercard International Incorporated v. Ov Loop, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 19, 2025 · IPR2023-01289 · APJ James A Tartal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–33 are unpatentable as obvious over Collinge; the Board did not reach the anticipation grounds based on Collinge or the grounds based on Fiske.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in electrical and computer engineering (or a related field) and approximately two years of work experience in the field of secure payment system,” and that “[a]dditional education in the field could be substituted for industry experience, and vice versa.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner does not suggest that its proposed level of ordinary skill materially differs from the level of skill proposed by Petitioner. See id. We find, on the current record, that the ’171 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected in these references and in the ’171 patent is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. We would have reached the same conclusions in this Decision had we adopted Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

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

    “In light of the lack of any dispute over the Second Construction, a construction we find consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, we need not resolve whether the claim language also encompasses Petitioner’s First Construction. Moreover, as explained below, we find Collinge renders obvious the subject matter of the limitation under either construction. See infra Section III.D.5. For the foregoing reasons, we find that an express construction of any claim term is not necessary for purposes of this Decision. 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) › Analogous artNot reached
  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments because here Petitioner is not relying on some other disclosure to fill a missing limitation absent from Collinge, but is instead relying only on Collinge and the knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would possess when appreciating the teachings of Collinge. Petitioner is not suggesting Collinge needed to be modified to add the use of an APDU, but, rather, that Collinge’s disclosure already contemplated it based on the well-known background of the art. Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that “the Collinge Provisionals state the disclosures therein are intended to be used in a ‘standard’ PayPass transaction,” and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “the PayPass Specification (and EMV Specifications, with which the PayPass Specification complies) when reading Collinge.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1009, 8, 14–15, 22–23; Ex. 1050 ¶ 22). in a “standard” PayPass transaction and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known, at a minimum, that it would have been obvious from Collinge that the “first set of data” (i.e., the encrypted payload in Collinge) would have been “usable” by the application of Collinge “to formulate an application protocol data unit response,” as required by limitation [1.C]. Petitioner further demonstrates how Collinge discloses that the “first set of data” was “useable by the application to formulate” an APDU response in addressing limitation [1.E–3], which specifically requires “generating a response.” See Pet. Reply 11 (explaining that “[d]etails of how [the encrypted payload] is used to formulate an APDU response are explained where that is separately claimed”); see also id. (citing Pet. 48–50 (addressing limitation [1.E-3])).” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 10,032,171 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,032,171

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.