- Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2026 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 30 and 62 are unpatentable over the respective Kim and Burrough combinations; claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 were not shown unpatentable because the cited gestures lacked a common starting point.
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. 10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.3 C.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“gesture” must refer back to the same gesture reflects the plain meaning of the claim language. In each independent claim, the structure and usage of the language in dispute are the same. Only one gesture detection is recited, and there is no language reasonably indicating repetition or reiteration of detection for any reason at any time. Patent Owner’s position that to meet “the gesture” recitations, prior art “gestures” must all share a common starting point also makes sense and is appropriate. The same gesture must start from the same starting point or else it is not the same gesture. Specifying the understanding this way avoids treating two similar gestures as the same gesture, if they have different starting points. For instance, two taps may be the same in every way, except for their starting points. They are not the same gesture in the context of these claims.” slip op. at 19
- Expert testimonyOther
“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. 10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.3 C.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Neither the tap-and-hold gesture in the bottom path of Kim’s Figure 7 nor the “long press input” and “long press event” of Kim such as that shown in Kim’s Figure 5 is the double-tap gesture Petitioner relies on to satisfy limitation [1.f]. Neither has been shown to have a common starting point with the double tap. Thus, Petitioner’s showing is inadequate. Limitation [1.i] recites: [1.i] when the magnitude of the duration of the gesture being detected on the touch screen on the object is greater than a second magnitude threshold, perform another operation. Pet. v. Petitioner explains: Kim teaches or renders [1.i] obvious. APPLE-1003, ¶62. Kim further describes “another operation” that is performed when the magnitude of the duration of the gesture is greater than a second magnitude threshold—specifically, a minimum threshold to be deemed an intentional touch. Specifically, Kim explains that, “[i]f detecting a user gesture, namely, if receiving an input event from a user through the touch screen, the mobile device determines the type of an input event.” APPLE-1004, [0053]. Kim states that, “[i]f an interrupt is not a request for the activation of the zoom mode as the result of determination in step 205, the mobile device can perform some action in connection with an interrupt (step 207),” shown in Figure 2a below. APPLE- 1004, [0050], FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶63. [Figure 2A of Kim is a flow diagram of a method for a touch-based control in a zoom mode (Ex. 1004 ¶ 20)] Kim additionally explains that if the mobile device determines that a detected user gesture does not correspond to any particular input event, “the mobile device disregards the received input event.” APPLE-1004, [0053]. Based on Kim’s disclosure of “disregarding” a received input, a POSITA would have understood that, for the detected interrupt (step 203) to be sufficient to cause the mobile device to “perform other action” (step 207), a magnitude greater than a minimum threshold value (e.g., the minimum threshold of an intentional user input) is relied upon, or rendered obvious, by Kim. APPLE-1004, FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶64. Thus, when the magnitude of the gesture is greater than a second magnitude threshold, the device “performs other action” (e.g., display requested menu). APPLE- 1004, [0050], FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶64. A POSITA would have understood that such an interrupt would be caused by a gesture that is longer in duration than the second threshold (as necessary to avoid the gesture from being disregarded), shorter than the duration necessary for a long press threshold, and a different gesture than a double tap gesture. APPLE-1003, ¶64. Pet. 24–26. As explained by Petitioner, the interrupt gesture relied on by” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 10,936,114 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2026 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Final written decision
The Board found claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 not proven unpatentable because the asserted combination did not teach the third conditional limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s position that the language of the claim requires the fulfillment of all the listed conditions (for each “when” clause) to cause the performance of the recited function. As stated above, the natural reading of the conditions is that they are prerequisites; they must be satisfied for the program to perform the recited function(s). For the third scenario, for example, the condition that the first web page is displayed must be satisfied in order for there to be a hyperlink to a second web page, such that the program can detect whether the location of the first contact point corresponds to that hyperlink. Ex. 1001, 102:60−62, 103:32−33, 103:37−39. The duration of the first contact has exceeded the second duration threshold without ending that first contact, and with no movement of the first contact point. Ex. 1001, 102:66−67, 103:1−3, 103:33−36, 103:39−42.13 These conditions collectively set the characteristics of the gesture that endures for the required amount of time. “When” this particular gesture is detected, for 13 We note that other non-challenged claims, require determining that there is movement of the first contact and performing corresponding functions of displaying the movement. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 108:9−24 (Claim 40, which depends from claim 1). the required duration, and recognizing the hyperlink is selected on the displayed first web page, then the three functions corresponding to these conditions in the third scenario are performed. This “when-then” relationship is conditional, as the parties seem to agree; but, we find, it is also causal. Because the cause of outputting the feedback with the actuator, displaying a menu, and further displaying a portion of the second web page to which the hyperlink pointed is that all the conditions were satisfied as required by the claim. Ex. 1001, 103:43−55. This is the plain and straightforward reading of the “when” clauses in claim 1.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Thus, Petitioner’s mapping as described above does not meet the requirements of the third “when” clause. We find that neither the snippet of Blumenberg nor the preview of Bhumkar is displayed in Petitioner’s proffered combination when the conditions of the third “when” clause are met. The condition of determining that the duration exceeds the “activation threshold” has no relationship to whether the display of the snippet or the preview occur. Blumenberg displays the link preview or snippet upon exceeding the 0.2 seconds or “selection threshold.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 49. Thus, there is no conditional relationship, much less a causal relationship between the display of the link preview or snippet and the “activation threshold” to which Petitioner has mapped the condition of the third “when” clause. The substitution of the snippet with Bhumkar’s “quick view” under Petitioner’s “simple substitution” rationale does not remedy the deficiency noted here. The function of “further display at least a portion of the second web page” (i.e., the “quick view”) is causally related to the “selection threshold,” and has no correlation to the duration determination, that the “activation threshold” has been exceeded. See Tr. 9:8−20 (Petitioner’s counsel arguing that “[t]here’s got to be correlation between them.”). Indeed, without a show of causality, the recited “further display” limitation is rendered irrelevant, in the Blumenberg-Bhumkar-Griffin combination. There is no need to “further display” because it already has been displayed, untethered to any condition recited in the third “when” clause.” slip op. at 41
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“at the time of the alleged invention would have had a “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 36–37). In the Decision on Institution, the Board adopted the uncontested language quoted above in Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill. The Board however did not adopt additional statements proffered by Petitioner regarding the “extensive background knowledge and understanding” allegedly possessed by a person of ordinary skill in the art (Pet. 6–7). Dec. on Inst. 9−10. Patent Owner agrees with the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted by the Board for purposes of the Decision on Institution. PO Resp. 12; see also Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 58−59. The specification of the ’581 patent describes an electronic device that allows for manipulation of user interface objects and, more specifically, the display of web pages through a user interface of a network browser application, according to contact with a touch-sensitive interaction surface. Ex. 1001, (54), Abstr. Consistent with the scope of the ’581 patent and the lack of dispute on the issue, we find that the level of skill in the art is reflected in a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Dr. Cockburn that the claims are not themselves programming code or even pseudo code. But they recite the functionality that the program instructions implement.15 We do not find useful Dr. Cockburn’s quibble with the word “instructions” recited in the claim as being too generic to import the understanding in the relevant art that programming logic is involved. Id. ¶ 55. Claim 1 recites more than mere “instructions.” As discussed above in Section II.E.1, the claim requires “one or more programs” and those “programs including instructions.” Ex. 1001, 102:56−59. We are persuaded by Dr. Mahon’s explanation concerning the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art and the implementation of instructions in programming logic that is executed by a processor, and that 15 Claim 42 is a method claim and does not recite the “program including instructions to” as claim 1 does. However, claim 42 does recite the processor and memory in parallel with the same functions recited in claim 1, and Petitioner has not argued that the scope of claims 1 and 42 differ in any material way. Ex. 1058 ¶ 55, n.3. Ex. 2008 ¶ 51. “from a software engineering standpoint, it would not be possible to implement a function that performs an action ‘when’ preconditions are met unless that function is designed to be executed because those preconditions have been detected.” Mahon Decl. ¶ 52. We credit Dr. Mahon’s explanations as they are reasoned and supported by the specification of the ’581 patent. Mahon Decl. ¶ 50. We are not persuaded by Dr. Cockburn’s rebuttal of Dr. Mahon’s reliance on the specification as supporting the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it dismisses the discussions of logic to implement the gesture detection and corresponding operations merely because these passages do not refer specifically to the three scenarios of the claim. Dr. Mahon’s discussion of general programming principles of conditional statements provides context relevant to the field of the invention. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 (“extrinsic evidence can help educate the court regarding the field of the invention and can help the court determine what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand claim terms to mean” but warning about the flaws inherent in this type of extrinsic evidence). Accordingly, we are persuaded that Dr. Mahon’s testimony confirms the understanding of the plain and natural reading of the claim language to require a causal relationship between the conditions and the functions.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 10,725,581 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,725,581 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 31, 2025 · IPR2024-01085 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–10, 17, 19, 22–26, 28–30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 48, 58–62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 73, 77, 82, and 83 were not shown unpatentable under either § 103 ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“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. 9. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.5 C.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“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. 2. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 4. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary. D.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner (PO Resp. 13) that when Ording refers to user interfaces that are “intuitive and transparent,” “transparent” in that context does not mean optically transparent but something readily understandable, like the preceding word “intuitive.” That makes more sense in context. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Mahon, explains that Ording’s paragraph 28, where the phrase “intuitive and transparent” is found, is not concerned with optical transparency, but with increasing user satisfaction with portable devices by offering multifunctional operations on user interfaces based on finger input. Ex. 2012 ¶ 54. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Cockburn explains why “transparent” in that context should mean optically transparent. We credit the testimony of Dr. Mahon, and reproduce paragraph 28 of Ording below: The various applications that may be executed on the device may use at least one common physical user interface device, such as the touch screen. One or more functions of the touch screen as well as corresponding information displayed on the device may be adjusted and/or varied from one application to the next and/or within a respective application. In this way, a common physical architecture (such as the touch screen) of the device may support the variety of applications with user interfaces that are intuitive and transparent. Ex. 1006 ¶ 28. We credit Dr. Mahon’s testimony that “Ording is addressing [in paragraph 28] user interfaces that are user-friendly and intuitive to navigate and operate.” Ex. 2012 ¶ 55.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“The Zlider widget already is the least intrusive in the form as disclosed in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, placed off to the side of image content, not above and overlapping with image content. Petitioner’s semitransparency solution is for a self-created problem that otherwise does not exist, i.e., blocking the image by placing the Zlider widget directly over image content in Ording’s device. This is not reasoning with rational underpinning for making the Zlider widget partially semitransparent. Even assuming that the Zlider widget is properly placed directly over a camera image, making the Zlider widget semitransparent does not solve the intrusion problem, because the image and the Zlider widget may obscure each other, as shown in these illustrations provided by Patent Owner: [The illustrations show interference between a semitransparent Zlider widget and an underlying image] In its Reply, Petitioner asserts that it would have been well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to make adjustments to address a problem caused by such obscuring, such as by making the Zlider widget more visible as shown below: [The illustration shows one way Petitioner asserts one of ordinary skill in the art may apply to solve the obscuring issue (Reply 5–6)] Petitioner’s argument is misplaced. Although there may be graphic display techniques one of ordinary skill in the art may adopt to reduce the visibility problem if the Zlider widget were moved to directly above the image content as Petitioner proposes, that does not cure the problem of lacking a reasonable motivation to place the Zlider widget of the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video directly over image content. Still, there is the least obscuring and the least intrusion with the Zlider widget remaining where it is shown to be in the Ramos Paper/Ramos Video, side-by-side relative to the image content. It is irrational to make a modification that creates a problem, solely on the basis that a solution may be available to reduce the severity of the problem. Indeed, such a strained rationale shows that hindsight has played a part on Petitioner’s contention that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have put the Zlider widget over content as required by the claims.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,649,580 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,649,580 - PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00756 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 on three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the asserted combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 of the ’803 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1, 5–7, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over TS 36.300, TS 36.321, and TS 36.331; 2) claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ericsson and TS 25.331; and 3) claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ericsson, TS 25.331, and Sebire; and” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“ordinary meaning, “primary” and “non-primary” cells are all cells that the WTRU is connected to (PO Resp. 16), the plain language in claim 1, and similarly in claim 7, does not require a “primary” node or “non-primary” cell to have a connection to the WTRU. See Ex. 1001, 10:38−56; 11:11–26. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the claims require that the WTRU “be connected to more than one cell,” wherein cells that are “associated with a wireless network node,” but are not connected to the WTRU “at the same time” cannot be “primary” or “non-primary” cells. PO Resp. 16. In the ’803 patent, nothing in the Specification clearly limits “primary” and “non-primary” cells as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner points to the Specification of the ’803 patent to show that, for softer handover, the WTRU is connected “with more than one cell [] which are controlled by the same Node-B,” and “[o]ne of the[se] cells 808 may be designated as a primary cell 808a, while other cells are designated as a non-primary cells 808b.” Id. (alterations in original) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:44–46, 9:4–6, Figs. 8A–B). However, this portion of the Specification (describing a softer handover embodiment in which a cell “may be designated” as a primary while other as non-primary) does not provide a clear definition to warrant interpreting the “primary” and “non-primary” cells as requiring “connection” to the WTRU “at the same time.” Id. That is, nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “primary” and “non-primary” cells from being “source” and “target” cell, as Patent Owner contends. PO Resp. 16. and the Specification, we determine that the terms “primary” and “non-primary” recited in claims 1 and 7 are not limited to cells connected to a WRTU at the same time. We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“f) Motivation to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331 Petitioner contends that a “POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331 because they are directed to similar technologies and a skilled artisan would have understood the benefits of combining these two references,” and “would have understood that there was a high likelihood of success in making the combination.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–157). In particular, the references “are both reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely protocols for handover in a telecommunications system.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). According to Petitioner, the combination “involves the predictable use of interchangeable prior art elements according to their established functions” more than routine engineering.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 174). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not present arguments in the Preliminary Response addressing the specific merits of Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the motivation to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331. See generally Prelim. Resp. 15–18. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that Ericsson and TS25.331 are “directed to similar technologies,” and that a “skilled artisan would have understood the benefits of combining these two references.” Pet. 34. On this preliminary record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ericsson and TS 25.331.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems,” and “would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks existing at the relevant time,” wherein “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,764,803 - Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. Thus, on the whole, Petitioner’s shifting, scattered arguments do not persuasively address limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois. And Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing claims 2–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in the challenge of claim 1. Pet. 46–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to correct image distortions and provide a more realistic mirror image.” Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 242–249. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 35, 38–39 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2009)). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that to a person of ordinary skill, Rosenberg alone or with Park teaches or suggests limitation 1[f].” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“shows by a preponderance of the evidence that limitations 1[c] and 1[e] are taught or suggested by Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; PO Resp. 39–40; Reply 19–20; Sur-reply 19. Petitioner persuades us that limitations 1[c] and 1[e], would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; Reply 19–20. Patent Owner’s counter arguments are unavailing for multiple reasons. Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they improperly attack Rosenberg’s teachings individually, rather than addressing Petitioner’s combination of the references. PO Resp. 39–40; Sur-reply 19. This is fatal to Patent Owner’s arguments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Petitioner presents persuasive arguments and evidence that the references, in combination, teach limitations 1[c] and 1[e], including persuasive evidence that the references’ tilting, resizing, and zooming meet the claim limitations’ “adaptive transformation mapping . . . to generate modified images that appear to be captured from a different point of view” that “corresponds to an image taken from a different angle and a different distance.” Pet. 58–64 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 253–268; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–28, 50, 52, 61, 75 ; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–51, 59, Figs. 6A–6B, 7, 8, 14, 15; Ex. 1019, 16–20; Ex. 1021, 2:19–27, 17:19–24, 21:60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–268; Ex. 1021, 17:17–23; Ex. 2012, 63:13–22, 111:13–21). Regarding tilting, after noting the ’110 patent’s disclosure (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of performing tilt transformations (Pet. 10–11), Petitioner advances persuasive evidence that Park discloses such a tilting transformation, thereby teaching the claimed “different angle” (id. at 61–63). Regarding resizing and zooming, citing extensive discussion in the ’110 patent (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of resizing and/or zooming to address the effects of varying distance between an object and a camera, Petitioner and Dr. Karam explain that the prior art’s zooming and resizing meet the claimed “different distance.” Pet. 63 (Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Ex. 1003 ¶ 265 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11). In its counterarguments, Patent Owner suggests that zooming and resizing do not account for “occlusion effects,” but Patent Owner does not persuasively tie this argument to the ’110 patent, failing to cite any portion of the ’110 patent that evinces its invention addresses such effects. PO Resp. 23–25, 39–40.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,808,017 - Apple Inc. v. Ferid AllaniInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00856 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–19 were obvious over the asserted prior-art combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). We determine Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of challenged claims 1–19 of the ’877 patent. Accordingly, the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill at the pertinent time “would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a closely related discipline and two years of relevant professional experience in software engineering or a similar field.” Prelim. Resp. 10. We adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art. It is supported by the testimony of Dr. Bederson. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–33, 37–39. Although Patent Owner has proposed a slightly different statement for the level of ordinary skill in the art, Patent Owner does not explain why Petitioner’s proposal is incorrect. We find Petitioner’s proposed level presents a better statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art because it requires experience with web-based information systems and Patent Owner’s proposal does not. As noted above, the ’877 patent relates to a method for accessing information sources and services on the Web. Ex. 1001, 2:4–12. Further, Petitioner’s proposal appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). B.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We need not resolve the above-identified dispute, because a different aspect of “beforehand locally stored” is determinative. Read in context, “beforehand locally stored” in both limitations 1(a)(2) and 12(a) refer back to the “preliminary search” action recited in limitation 1(a)(1) and in limitation 12(a) itself, respectively. Thus, we construe “beforehand locally stored” to mean that the selection pages must already be stored within the communication device when the user begins the preliminary search, regardless of whether it was the user or an automated process that downloaded the selection pages to the communication device. This understanding stems from a plain reading of the claim language and does not leave room for reasonable doubt otherwise. Petitioner does not present any reason why the claims do not require the selection pages to have already been stored in the communication device when a user begins the preliminary search. C.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“of the language in these limitations is that the selection pages must be beforehand locally stored, where beforehand is assessed at the time of starting a preliminary search. Based on this construction, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Rossman discloses limitation 1(a)(2) and limitation 12(a), even for institution purposes. Petitioner identifies Rossmann’s cards as the claimed selection pages of claims 1 and 12. Pet. 18–19. Rossmann’s cards, however, are not beforehand locally stored on the communication device at the time a user begins a preliminary search for information. Rather, on the record before us, at the time of starting a search for information, the user must request a connection to a server device at a desired host site, which request results in the server device at the host site sending one or more decks each including a plurality of cards to the user’s mobile device. Ex. 1004, 6:26–29; 7:22–27; 7:56–66. Thus, Rossmann’s cards are not beforehand locally stored at the time the user commences a preliminary search. Petitioner’s reliance on Himmel and on King do not make up for this deficiency.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,271,877 - Apple Inc. v. Ferid AllaniInstitutedPTAB · Nov 4, 2025 · IPR2025-00857 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 21 and 23–26.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the record before us, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1– 27 of the ’058 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] at the time of the ’058 Patent would have had bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two to three years of experience with web-based information systems. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements. Dec., ¶¶37-39. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–39). Patent Owner contends that: A [person of ordinary skill in the art] at that time would be a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a closely related discipline and two years of relevant professional experience in software engineering or a 2 US Patent No. 6,119,155 issued Sept. 12, 2000 (Ex. 1004). 3 US Patent No. 6,037,934 issued Mar. 14, 2000 (Ex. 1005). 4 US Patent No. 6,353,839 B1 filed Apr. 30, 1998, issued Mar. 5, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 5 US Patent No. 6,493,702 B1 filed May 5, 1999, issued Dec. 10, 2002 (Ex. 1008). 6 US Patent No. 6,138,158 issued Oct. 24, 2000 (Ex. 1007). similar field. Alternatively, someone with an advanced degree and less professional experience or less education and more professional experience would also qualify as a [person of ordinary skill in the art]. Prelim. Resp. 11. Given that Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill substantially overlaps with Petitioner’s definition, and given that Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s definition, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the plain meaning of “beforehand locally stored” requires the claimed selection pages to be present on the local device before a user conducts a preliminary search. Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that a user could download and store selection pages to the local device, such downloading and storing must occur before the user locally performs a preliminary search in order for the selection pages to be “beforehand locally stored” within the scope of claims 1 and 27. We construe the terms “said selection pages being beforehand locally stored” recited in claim 1 and “said selection pages being . . . beforehand locally stored” recited in claim 27 as requiring the selection pages to be locally stored before a user locally performs a preliminary search.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. Rossman discloses times when accessing a web page over the network is unavoidable. Col. 8; see Pet. 21. Himmel teaches that using a bookmark to directly access a desired page is quicker than navigating through intermediate pages to get to the desired page. See Pet. 22–23, 25. Patent Owner does not address Rossman’s disclosure that a request to a network web page may be unavoidable, and does not address Himmel’s disclosure of making a direct request to the desired web page to save time and conserve network resources when accessing the desired web page. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that adding Himmel’s bookmarks to Rossmann’s cards provides the benefit of directly accessing a particular web function, thus reducing network traffic and data usage as compared to navigating multiple web pages to arrive at the particular web function.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,943,058
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.