- Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 45–47, 51, 59, 60, 68, and 69 are unpatentable; claims 56 and 57 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 85–88 and 91 are unpatentable; amendment is granted for claims 92 and 93.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps [the] prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner states that it believes there is no need to construe any terms of the challenged original claims because there is no underlying controversy regarding any claim terms. PO Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“3. Motivation to Combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy Petitioner argues that “it would have been obvious to partition Buibas’[s] spiking networks according to the specific techniques disclosed in Sinyavskiy” for multiple reasons. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–203; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, 191, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). First, Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to parallelize task execution on the robot and improve learning capabilities (e.g., through faster learning, greater computing efficiency, and task-specific learning models) of the Buibas mobile robotic apparatus as described by Sinyavskiy and discussed by Dr. Janet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Second, Petitioner contends, “partitioning Buibas’[s] robotic brain as suggested by Sinyavskiy would have beneficially expanded the range of tasks that the robot could perform by dedicating partitions to specialized tasks.” Id. at 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–205; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Third, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to permit unused partitions or unused resources in the partitions to be reassigned for different tasks,” which would allow for a network processing apparatus that has increased processing capability for the same network capacity while also having a lower cost, size and power consumption. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 190–192, 105, 34, code (57); Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Fourth, Petitioner argues that “Buibas briefly mentions that its spiking neural networks can be partitioned but discloses little detail about the partitioning,” which would invite one of ordinary skill to turn to other references, such as Sinyavskiy, for additional detail on how to implement partitioning. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Fifth, Petitioner asserts, combining Buibas and Sinyavskiy would merely “involve[] the application of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to a known system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain) to yield predictable results (e.g., Buibas’[s] robot using a spiking neural network partitioned as taught in Sinyavskiy),” particularly because “the partitioning of the Buibas neural network is reminiscent of Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Networks (RFNNs) that were already commonplace at the end of the 1990’s.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Finally, Petitioner contends, the proposed combination merely involves “use of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to improve a similar system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Saber that these “weights” are numerical values associated with connections among neurons, and the “weight vectors” are merely lists of weights. PO Resp. 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67. When input is provided to the neural network, the network uses the weights of its connections in a feedforward calculation manner to provide an output that can include an instruction for operating a device. Ex. 2001 ¶ 66. We agree with and find credible Dr. Saber’s testimony that Buibas’s merging of weights or weight vectors results in updated network weights, and does not, by itself, disclose the merging of instruction sets for operating a device, or the correlation of the same set of inputs for all or a portion of a circumstance representation with instruction sets for operating two different devices. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65, 67, 69–71.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,663,474 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,663,474 - Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless / Verizon Corp. Servs. Grp. Inc. et al. v. Headwater Partners I LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00809 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, and 6–18 as obvious over Limont, Wright, and Xu; claims 3–5 as obvious over those references and Polson.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with the changing of configuration settings of end-user devices to control access of the device to network data services, and storing those configuration settings in a protected partition” and “would have gained this knowledge through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science and two years of experience.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). For institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. Inst. Dec. 15. Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposal. PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Pet. 7–8). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been familiar with the changing of configuration settings of end-user devices to control access of the device to network data services, and storing those configuration settings in a protected partition” and “would have gained this knowledge through a mixture of training and work experience, such as by having a Bachelor’s degree in computer science and two years of experience.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–43). We find that Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’042 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner proposes that claim terms be given their plain and ordinary meaning “because the prior art relied on in this Petition meets each claim term under any reasonable construction.” Pet. 7. For institution, we preliminarily adopted Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation of “network data service” to mean “a service that provides network data.” Inst. Dec. 17 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:48–49; Ex. 2001 ¶ 30). Patent Owner responds “that ‘network data service’ is a term of art, and refers to a service in which access to network data is provided.” PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2032 ¶¶ 33–51, 56–59). Patent Owner argues that “data” refers to “data accessibility (i.e., a data plan or data connectivity), as opposed to other types of network services (such as network SMS service or network voice service)” and, therefore, “‘network data service’ refers to connectivity to an access network such that data service can be used (i.e., network data provided by a network data service provider), rather than specific services that might make use of such network data services (such as a content service provider like a webpage provider).” Id. (citing Ex. 2032 ¶ 34). Patent Owner also argues with citations to the record that its proposed interpretation is consistent with intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, including patents assigned to Petitioner. Id. at 9–18. Petitioner replies that Patent Owner’s “new restrictive, exclusionary” interpretation should be rejected because it lacks support in the record, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have understood the term to be so restricted. Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:4–20; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 39–42, 44–49), 5, 12–14 (citing PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1001, 5:4–20), 17–18 (citing PO Resp. 15–18; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 71–77; Ex. 2033; Ex. 2037, 1:66–2:5). Petitioner type of service provides for specific network data service to a particular ‘destinations, URLs or addresses on a network.’” Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶ 50). Petitioner also argues that Patent Owner fails to provide analysis for adopting its new proposed interpretation, the asserted prior art still meets the interpretation, and there is no lexicography or scope disavowal. Id. at 2, 11– 12 (citing PO Resp. 7, 10–13; Ex. 1001, 5:11–20), 15 (citing Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 63–69), 14 (citing PO Resp. 3–4, 11–12). Petitioner further addresses Patent Owner’s asserted extrinsic evidence. Id. at 17–18 (citing PO Resp. 15–18; Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 71–77; Ex. 2033; Ex. 2037, 1:66–2:5). Petitioner also replies that Patent Owner could have, but did not,” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“(1) Analogous Art Petitioner argues that Limont, Wright, and Xu each “teach[es] the same subject of managing and updating secure data, including policies, wirelessly on mobile devices,” and because of their similar identification of problems and proposed solutions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 264–267), 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 278–287; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1005 ¶ 9). Petitioner also argues that the citing of Wright during prosecution of Limont supports that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered Limont and Wright to be closely related. Id. at 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–277; Ex. 1013, 140–141, 145–148, 229–230). Patent Owner does not present any arguments regarding analogous art. See PO Resp. Based on the full record, we determine that Limont, Wright, and Xu are analogous art. Pet. 19; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 264–287; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1005 ¶ 9; Ex. 1013, 140–141, 145–148, 229–230.” slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 9,198,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,042 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680 - Tanklogix, LLC v. SiteproInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00650 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 18–32 and 34 were unpatentable over Kahn or Kahn and Gutierrez.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“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) (2024). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’871 patent. Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we decline to institute an inter partes review of claims 18–32 and 34 of the ’871 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The respective proposed levels of qualifications for a person of ordinary skill in the art are similar, with Patent Owner proposing two years of experience compared to Petitioner proposing significant experience with remotely controlling fluid-handling devices, like SCADA systems. Patent Owner also proposes more extensive experience in lieu of educational experience. While we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications to be acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’871 patent and the asserted prior art. Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the qualifications adopted.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes on the current record. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“actuators and the remote control of fluid handling devices, including the receipt with the user-interface module of “a user command to actuate an actuator via a presented control interface” (limitation [18.7]) and “account authorized to send commands to remotely control fluid handling devices” (limitation [18.11]). We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses or teaches these limitations because the evidence does not provide support that there is remote control of fluid handling devices or the use of a user command on a control interface to send a command to a fluid handling device, for instance. Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but we do not discern that it teaches or discloses the capability to remotely control fluid handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, the Kahn disclosures that Petitioner repeatedly relies upon for allegedly teaching this control are deficient. See Ex. 1005, 10:62–67, 14:35– 15:2, 15:62–16:32; see also Pet. 12–14, 16–18. Kahn discloses that “the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance.” Ex. 1005, 10:62–67. Communication unit 112B is part of the local “sensor unit,” wherein the detection conditions determined by the sensor are communicated to remote devices by communication unit 112B. See id. at 3:31–33, 5:62–6:2, 6:27–35, 7:33–37, 13:7–12, Figs. 1A–1C. Kahn discloses that the sensor units, which include communication units 112B, can be located near shut-off valves and can communicate with distant locations. See id. at 11:1–13. There are no disclosures, however, in the above passages that there is remote control of fluid handling devices, that there is a user command on a control interface that actuates an actuator, or that there is a command sent to the facility actuators via a network connection, as required in limitations [18.5]–[18.7] and [18.9]–[18.12], respectively. Rather, the disclosure indicates that the communication unit 112B includes on-site alerts and that the local (non-remote) communication unit 112B can be interfaced with the control valve.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,488,871 - AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00310 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 4–6 and 8 are unpatentable as obvious over Lee1 and Lee2; the Board found the Lee1–Lee2 combination teaches the limitations and has sufficient motivation to combine.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”), on or around the earliest possible priority date of the ’207 patent, 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 “familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks,” and that “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 3, 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 36). In its Preliminary Response, “Patent Owner generally concurs with [Petitioner’s] description, though would propose that a POSITA only needs two years of experience . . . . [but] does not believe any difference between Patent’s Owner’s view and Petitioners’ view affects the unpatentability analysis.” Prelim. Resp. 24. We agree with Patent Owner that the difference between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s formulations would not affect our analysis of patentability. We adopt Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by expert testimony and is generally consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and the prior art. See, e.g., Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Looking first at the claim language itself, Patent Owner’s construction is unduly narrow. The “for” recitations derive antecedent basis from limitation 4a. Ex. 1001, 36:44–45. Limitation 4a recites “a 4-step” procedure and “a 2-step” procedure. Thus, the claim includes one of each procedure type: “one” 4-step and “one” 2-step (i.e., single instances of each procedure). Patent Owner similarly reads the claim as requiring “one or more” of each procedure type. See Tr. 33:19–34:4. Because limitation 4a provides antecedent basis for a singular 4-step procedure and a singular 2-step procedure, this strongly suggests that the claim requires for the one (or for the single) 4-step procedure but not for all 4-step procedures, and for the one (or for the single) 2-step procedure but not for all 2-step procedures. At trial, Patent Owner’s interpretation was similar, stating, “that would read. . . as for the one or more 4-step . . . procedure and for the one or more 2-step . . . procedure.” See Tr. 33:25– 34:4 (emphasis added). In seeming contradiction, Patent Owner also stated, “I read that as being . . . all 4-step contention random access procedures . . . and all 2-step random access based procedures.” Id. (emphasis added). We note that Patent Owner does not, however, cite any legal precedent for interpreting “one or more” as requiring “all,” or provide reasoning for departing from the default claim construction principle that “one or more” includes “one.” For this reason and for reasons further discussed below, construing “for the 4-step” to mean “for all 4-step,” and “for the 2-step” to mean “for all 2-step,” would improperly import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”).” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“explained below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 4 is rendered obvious over Lee1 and Lee2 (“Lee1–Lee2”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“With these teachings in mind, we are persuaded by Petitioner that incorporating Lee2’s higher power and different ramping into Lee1’s 2-step procedure would have even further reduced the latency of Lee1’s 2-step procedure, and that this would have resulted in different power settings based on procedure type. Pet. 37–38; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 88–89; Reply 12–13. Patent Owner does not meaningfully dispute this point. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Instead, Patent Owner argues that Lee1’s 4-step procedure would “equally benefit” from reducing latency, and that Petitioner has not explained why a POSITA would not use the same power settings for both procedures, i.e., use Lee2’s same higher power and different ramping in Lee1’s 4-step procedure. See PO Resp. 41–42. However, Petitioner’s burden is to provide a motivation for the proposed combination—in this case, modifying Lee1’s 2-step procedure with Lee2’s higher power and lower ramping. The obviousness analysis does not require Petitioner to explain why the references would not have been combined in an alternative way not proposed by Petitioner. To the extent Patent Owner argues that Lee1 and Lee2 cannot be combined as proposed, and therefore must be combined in this alternative manner, we disagree. For example, Patent Owner does not provide evidence of teaching away or that the proposed combination is inoperable. See generally PO Resp. 37–42; Sur-reply 12–17. Furthermore, we do not see how solving any technical issues in combining Lee1 and Lee2 as proposed would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, Petitioner explains why a POSITA would have sought to” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,932,207 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,932,207 - Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00728 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6, 9, and 16 are not shown unpatentable because the Midya-based grounds fail on the terminal limitation.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’430 patent and the prior art. In adopting this definition, we note that neither the title nor the “Field of the Invention” portions of the ’430 patent limit the invention to integrated circuits, and Patent Owner does not dispute that claim 1 encompasses inductors that are not provided on an integrated circuit. Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:16–22. Additionally, Dr. Prucnal’s definitions have shifted, and his latest definition purports to be based on Dr. Tentzeris’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, but changes “experience designing integrated circuits or inductors for semiconductors” to “experience designing integrated circuits and inductors for semiconductors” without sufficient explanation of the reasons for the change. Supp. Prucnal Decl. ¶ 8; Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 56. However, our Decision in this case would not change under Patent Owner’s revised articulation. See Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 57 (stating that his opinion would not change under Patent Owner’s revised definition of the level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“After considering the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 is not limiting. First, we determine that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in claim 11 does not provide antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. The body of claim 11 does not refer to “the semiconductor die” or even mention the “semiconductor die” at all, and neither do any of the claims that depend from claim 11. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 provides antecedent basis for the term “the first inductor” in the body of the claim, because the “first inductor” language in the preamble provides antecedent basis for “the first inductor” language in the claim’s body. The “on a semiconductor die” language in the preamble is presented separately and can be easily parsed from the preamble’s language reciting a “first inductor” without impacting the understandability or grammatical completeness of claim 11. Therefore, the “on a semiconductor die” language in claim 11’s preamble is not necessary to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the first inductor” in the body of claim 11. This use of language in claim 11 is distinguishable from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Deere v. Bush Hog, cited by Patent Owner, where the preamble term “rotary cutter deck” provided antecedent basis for the term “said deck” recited in the claim body, because in Deere, the words “rotary cutter” appeared directly before, directly modified, and were not easily parsed from the term “deck.” See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2012); PO Resp. 7–8.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 11 do not require that the first and second inductor be laterally spaced, but instead merely require that the second inductor be positioned at a “predetermined distance” from the first inductor. Nothing in the claim language restricts this “predetermined distance” from being in the X, Y, or Z direction, or requires that the inductors be laterally spaced in the same plane. Moreover, the fact that the ’430 patent Specification describes embodiments where the inductors are laterally spaced in the same plane does not limit the claims to those embodiments. As explained previously, our reviewing court “has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906. “Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. We see no such “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” here. Accordingly, we give the term “predetermined distance” its ordinary meaning, which includes a distance in any direction. The parties do not dispute that Taniguchi’s inductors are spaced apart with an insulation layer in between. Therefore, under the ordinary meaning of the claim language, Taniguchi’s second inductor is “positioned at a predetermined distance from the first inductor.”” slip op. at 26
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We agree with and adopt the ITC’s construction of “closely spaced,” which is “two terminals in proximity to each other (such that the electromagnetic field at a certain distance from the first inductor (where the second inductor is positioned) is reduced.” Ex. 1020, 12. We find that this construction is supported by the intrinsic record, including the Specification of the ’430 patent, which shows terminals being “closely spaced” compared to the dimensions of the inductor itself, and explains that the purpose of the close spacing is to make the field contributions from the two parts of the inductor identical. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1–2, 4:28–32. Claims 1 and 11 of the ’430 patent lack specific dimensions for either the inductor or the spacing between the terminals, and indicate that the purpose of the close spacing is to “minimiz[e] magnetic field contributions from the terminals.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–25, 11:7–10. Dr. Prucnal’s ITC declaration, although not intrinsic evidence, further supports our conclusion. Although Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “closely spaced terminals,” it appears to argue that this term must be interpreted based on the dimensions of the semiconductor chip described in the ’430 patent. PO Resp. 43. We do not see any basis in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to impart such a narrow reading to the claim language, particularly because the ’430 patent Specification does not define the “closely spaced terminals” in relation to a semiconductor chip, and claim 1 is not limited to inductors on a semiconductor chip.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 7,151,430 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,151,430 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Lionra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00734 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable as obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable as obvious over those references and Georgiou.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“(1) claims 1 and 3 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, and Kwan; and (2) claims 15, 17, and 19–21 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou. In summary:9” slip op. at 111
Patent outcomesUS 7,623,518 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,623,518 - Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00490 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 are unpatentable over Oborne or Oborne and Purves; claims 2, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74–79). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’973 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 11
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Shamos’s testimony in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See, Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that, contrary to Petitioner’s position, “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for the second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. See Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1005 ¶ 228. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of “device fingerprinting” is limited, and does not describe how it would be implemented for a user with two devices. See PO Resp. 41–42. Therefore, Dr. Shamos’s cited Declaration testimony is “conclusory, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential); see also 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.”).” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We recognize the application of “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. However, we “must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphases added) (internal quotations omitted). Although Stafford discloses that the key signatures may be copied from the display or delivered to the user via email, Petitioner does not expand upon whether the user would also copy the image from the display, whether the image would be provided via email as well, or provide any other explanation other than that the image credential would be provided with the scannable key signatures. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 97, 99; Pet. 60. Although a credential image would presumably need to be retrieved or generated in some manner, and associated with the key signatures in some manner, Petitioner also does not sufficiently explain how this would work in the proposed combination, or how the user would transmit the scannable key signature to the recipient. Although proof of physical or bodily incorporation is not required, a satisfactory explanation of “how the combination of the . . . references [is] supposed to work” is necessary to support “a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing so.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding no error where the Board required petitioner to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented petitioner’s proposed substitution). Petitioner fails to provide “a clear, evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings” of the proposed combination of Stafford and Purves. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 994.” slip op. at 62
Patent outcomesUS 11,329,973 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,329,973
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.