- PTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01090 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 21, 29–31, 42–44, 54, and 62–65 based on the §103 combination of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In an inter partes review, the petitioner must show with particularity why each challenged claim is unpatentable. Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016); 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b). The burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner may bear a burden of production, however, to show that the Challenged Claims are entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date. Id. at 1379–80.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“On this record, we preliminarily agree with Petitioner that the claim limitations amount to a combination of known elements that a POSITA could have combined to achieve predictable results. See Intel, 21 F.4th at 799–800 (determining that a showing of the obviousness in predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option). Among other reasons, the preliminary record supports Petitioner’s arguments that combining the teachings of Blumenberg, Bhumkar, and Griffin amounts to applying known solutions in the field of computer interfaces with predictable outcomes. See Pet. 12–18. As noted above, we encourage the parties to address the scope and meaning of the “when” limitations as a matter of claim interpretation, but we do not currently understand the plain language of Limitation [1.o] to require that the “portion of the second web page” or “menu” is displayed only after expiration of the “second user-configurable predefined duration,” termed by Patent Owner the “Alternative Modification.” Again, we encourage the parties to fully address this issue as a matter of claim construction. We additionally note that, even if we were to interpret the claims to require that the recited functions of Limitation [1.o] occur only the “prerequisite elements” are satisfied, we are still preliminarily persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that combined teachings of the prior art satisfy the claim elements as a mere combination of known elements combined according to their known functions with predictable results.” slip op. at 27
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“scenarios. Pet. 1 (characterizing three claimed scenarios as (i) an “inadvertent” contact, (ii) a “tap” contact, and (iii) a “hold” contact), 4 (“Independent Claims 1 and 42 outline three scenarios regarding a user’s contact with a touch screen device”); Prelim. Resp. 3 (“With respect to claim 1, these three scenarios include: . . . .”); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28 (“As recited in claim 1, the three different claimed functionalities are executed ‘when’ the prerequisite elements are met (described as three scenarios by Dr. Cockburn.”) (citing Ex. 1001, 102:50–103:55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 33–35), 29–32 (describing the first, second, and third scenarios). In substance, the parties’ dispute appears to concern whether the plain language of the claims requires that a recited function must be performed only after or in response to expiration of a threshold (and other prerequisites), as opposed to requiring a function that begins before and continues after expiration of a threshold. Notably, dependent claim 3 recites: “The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured such that the first feedback that is perceptible by touch is output prior to the display of the menu.” Ex. 1001, 104:1–4 (emphasis added). Given that independent claim 1 is necessarily broad enough to include claim 3, it seems on this record that the functions recited in Limitation [1.o] necessarily can happen at different times, as opposed to, for example, only responses that are triggered by the so-called “prerequisite elements.” We encourage the parties to address this issue as a matter of claim interpretation in future briefing. Based on the current record, however, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,725,581 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01191 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–28 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Wiz would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“After Patent Owner filed its Preliminary Response, however, Petitioner filed a stipulation consistent with the stipulation filed in Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (Decision Granting Institution) (precedential as to § II.A) (“Sotera”). Ex. 1107. On June 21, 2022, the Director issued guidance (“Director Guidance”) in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors.6 Notably, the Director stated that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Director Guidance, 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1107.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’326 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 63 (citing Ex. 1004, 109, 138). The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’326 patent. For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’326 patent. See id.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. After considering the parties’ arguments and evidence, and for the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one of the challenged claims of the ’326 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review with respect to all challenged claims and all grounds asserted in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers essentially the same assessment of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, arguing the following: a [POSITA] as of the ’326 patent’s earliest priority date (January 28, 2019), would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience or academic research experience in cyber security and virtualization, including cloud computing cybersecurity. Additional education can compensate for less experience and vice-versa. Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–12, 19–26). We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’326 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,775,326 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 22, 2025 · IPR2024-01190 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–15 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least claim 1 would be obvious over Veselov and Mohanty.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued guidance (“Director Guidance”) in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors.7 Notably, the Director stated that the Board “will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board].” Director Guidance, 3. With this guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1106.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’926 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 61 (citing Ex. 1004, 138, 142). The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’926 patent. For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’926 patent. See id. It is also undisputed that the Examiner did not consider the other references that serve as the basis of Petitioner’s asserted obviousness grounds (i.e., Mohanty, Ranum, Seo, and Hutchins) during prosecution. Nor did the Examiner have the benefit of Dr. Stavrou’s testimony regarding the teachings of Petitioner’s asserted references. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Petitioner’s arguments that the Petition presents substantially the same art and arguments that were considered previously during prosecution of the ’926 patent.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“j. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Veselov and Mohanty.” slip op. at 28
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner offers essentially the same assessment of the level of skill in the art as Petitioner, arguing the following: a [POSITA] as of the ’926 patent’s earliest priority date (January 28, 2019), would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, and two years of industry experience or academic research experience in cyber security and virtualization, including cloud computing cybersecurity. Additional education can compensate for less experience and vice-versa. Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 1–13, 19–26). We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment. Petitioner’s assessment is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’926 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,740,926 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01089 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 9–11, 13–16, and 56–64 and 84, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.”” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “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) appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’212 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’212 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“First, we determine, on the present record, that Petitioner has not improperly combined embodiments of Hotelling. Petitioner sufficiently shows that Hotelling describes a device which is “designed to recognize touch gestures applied to a touch screen” and which “recognizes the occurrence of gestures” and informs associated software agents of “the ¶ 135 (cited at Pet. 9, 24, 35). While Hotelling’s disclosed example of a touch vocabulary relates to the music player embodiment (Ex. 1004 ¶ 151, Figs. 27A–E), Hotelling generally teaches “[a] hand-held electronic device . . . designed to recognize touch gestures applied to a touch screen” and which upon receipt of gestures “executes instructions to carry out operations associated with the gestures.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 135 (cited at Pet. 8, 9, 24, 35). After considering Hotelling and the parties’ arguments and testimony, we determine that, on the present record, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Hotelling’s general teachings regarding gestures received on a touch screen includes the recognition of touch gestures (pressing a button, sliding a finger or stylus, moving the entire device spatially) while Hotelling’s main page is being displayed. Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 84, 85, 87; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 64–66. While we agree that the “touch vocabulary” provided in the “example” of Figures 27A-E (see Ex. 1004 ¶ 151) relates to a music player, we do not, on the present record, determine that Hotelling limits its disclosed recognition of touch gestures and execution of instructions to carry out operations associated with the gestures (including via a touch vocabulary) as relating only to the music player or to the other specific functionalities of the device, rather than to all user input GUIs.” slip op. at 18
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,671,212 - PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on its § 103 challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information 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.” For the reasons that follow, we institute inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’758 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 7 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 41–53). For the purposes of institution, Patent Owner did not dispute this level of skill. Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.”) The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring “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” appears to be consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree at this time. Additionally, we do not herein adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Pet. 7.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner also notes that in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner contends that eight claim terms found in the challenged claims are indefinite: “performing an operation [in connection with / on] the first application icon,” “application-launch criteria,” “action-option-display criteria,” “operation criteria,” “movement criteria,” “action options,” “action option objects,” and “evaluating the first single-finger touch input against at least one of a plurality of criteria, including evaluating a duration of the first single-finger touch input against at least one of: one or more application-launch criteria, one or more action-option-display criteria, or one or more operation criteria, and further including evaluating a movement of the first single-finger touch input against one or more movement criteria.” Prelim. Resp. 6–7 (citing Ex. 2003, 9–75). Patent Owner further notes that, contrary to its position in the pending District Court Litigation, Petitioner does not assert that any of these terms are indefinite in this proceeding. Id. For institution and on our present record, we determine that none of these claim terms require construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). 3. Other Terms For institution and on our present record, no other claim terms require construction. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We determine that, on this record and for the purposes of institution, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing regarding motivation for its proposed combination of Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. For the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn, we determine, on the present record and for the purposes of institution, that Petitioner has sufficiently shown support for the use of Martyn’s snap-shot menu with Chaudhri’s user interface. We acknowledge Patent Owner’s declarant’s examples of instances in which devices that incorporated “popular user interface features . . . did not achieve the same level of success because of poorly articulated design implementation.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 127 (cited at PO Resp. 23). However, on the present record, this evidence does not specifically address whether one of ordinary skill would have found such examples significant enough or relevant enough to the proposed combination to dissuade one of ordinary skill from considering such a combination to be reasonably likely to succeed, especially in light of the testimonial evidence before us that similar menus were often incorporated into GUIs similar to Chaudhri’s, which is adequately supported by reference to numerous examples. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43–48, 64–65 (cited at Pet. 16). Additionally, we find compelling that Chaudhri describes a pop-up dialogue sub-menu for a different purpose (modifying the user interface object). See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 274, 317, Figure 5LLL; Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. On the present record, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the use of the similar snap-shot menu from Martyn (offering different functionality) to be further prompted by this sub-menu, and not to have been redundant or “already solved” in Chaudhri, as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 26–27). See Pet. 18–19; Ex. 1003 ¶ 69. introduced to the combination of Chaudhri and Martyn to address a conflict that arises because Petitioner proposes a combination of Chaudhri and Martyn that “create[s] a conflict of assigning two functions to the same gesture.” PO Resp. 20. However, Petitioner provides a number of rationales to combine, and Petitioner’s argument that one of ordinary skill would have sought details from Griffin to implement Chaudhri’s teachings describing different user functionality being launched by user touches of different user durations (Pet. 19–21) adequately supports the use of the material from Griffin in the proposed combination. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 217, 218; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75; see also PO Resp. 24 (describing “multiple types of gestures” used Chaudhri). While the proposed combination of Chaudhri and Martyn would, as Petitioner asserts, result in “three distinct operations invoked by duration-based touch gestures at an application icon” (Pet. 21), two of these distinct operations are found in Chaudhri’s teachings, and thus, on the present record, the motivation to look to Griffin does not arise only from the proposed combination of Chaudhri with Martyn. On the present record and for the purposes of institution, we determine that Petitioner has adequately shown that one of ordinary skill would have looked to Griffin to supply additional information regarding implementation of Chaudhri’s (and the Chaudhri and Martyn combination’s) use of parameters of a user’s touch, including duration, to enable different functionalities. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 40, 53, Fig. 7; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–73, 75. With respect to the use of the “press-and-hold” feature from Martyn, rather than other possibilities from Martyn for triggering its snap-shot menu and rather than adding a second touch point as Patent Owner suggests (PO Resp. 27–28, 32, 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 142–143, 156, 166, 172–173)), on to have been a suitable option. Pet. 15–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63–64; Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (determining that a showing of the obviousness in “predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (as per KSR, 550 U.S. at 417) requires only a showing that the combination be a suitable option, rather than a showing that it is the best option).” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,758 - Wiz, Inc. v. Orca Security Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01109 · APJ Garth D Baer · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–23 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would be unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“On June 21, 2022, the Director issued interim guidance in the form of a memo that further clarifies how we should approach analyzing the Fintiv factors. See Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf. Notably, the Director stated that “the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘PTAB’)] will not discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner presents a stipulation not to pursue in a parallel proceeding the same grounds or any ground that could have been reasonably raised before the PTAB.” Id. at 3. With this interim guidance in mind, we decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution of this proceeding under Fintiv because Petitioner filed a Sotera stipulation. Ex. 1093.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“In evaluating arguments under § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or whether the same or substantially the same arguments previously were presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (Decision Denying Institution) (precedential). Patent Owner does not dispute that Veselov is the only reference that serves as the basis of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds that was considered during prosecution of the ’809 patent. See Prelim. Resp. 58–60; see also Pet. 7. The Examiner, however, did not meaningfully address Veselov during prosecution of the ’809 patent. See Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1004, 73, 107– 115, 156–157, 181–182). For example, the Examiner did not apply the teachings of Veselov to teach or suggest the limitations of the originally presented claims of the ’809 patent. See id. It is also undisputed that the Examiner did not consider the other references that serve as the basis of Petitioner’s asserted obviousness grounds (i.e., Mohanty, Hutchins, and” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1001, 9:48, 11:24, 12:16. Petitioner proposes we construe this term to encompasses two alternative approaches: (1) “direct analysis of the snapshot data”; and (2) “analysis of a VM instantiated from a snapshot.” See Pet. 10. Patent Owner disputes the second approach, but not the first. See Prelim. Resp. 9–12. For purposes of institution, we agree with Petitioner’s first alternative approach—“analyz[ing] the snapshot” encompasses “direct analysis of the snapshot data.” This construction finds support in the ’809 patent’s specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:20–21 (“The snapshot is parsed and analyzed by the security system 140 to detect vulnerabilities.”), 5:37–40 (“[T]he security system 140 may be configured to match the application files, either directly (using binary comparison) or by computing a cryptographic hash against [a] database of files in vulnerable applications.”). Because, as we explain below, Petitioner’s obviousness analysis is sufficient under this first approach, we take no position on Petitioner’s second alternative approach, which Patent Owner disputes. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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))). Pet. 8–10, we do not need to further construe the claims to determine whether to institute IPR. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We do not discern a material difference between the assessments of the level of skill in the art advanced by either party, nor does either party premise its arguments exclusively on its own assessment. For purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the appropriate level of encompassing a Ph.D. degree and beyond), and does not meaningfully indicate the level of skill in the art. Petitioner’s assessment—without the qualifier—is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stavrou and it is consistent with the ’809 patent and the asserted prior art. We note, however, that our obviousness analysis would be the same under each party’s assessment.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,726,809 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15–35, and 37–43 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We determine Petitioner’s showing discussed above regarding Limitations [1.i–1.l] to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner’s showing in large measure relies on Hackborn’s straightforward description of changing the appearance of grass displayed in “live” wallpaper in response to a finger swipe in combination with Westerman’s disclosures of interpreting user input on touch screens as swipes. See, e.g., Pet. 22–23; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 28, 33; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18–19. With regard to the contested Limitations [1.i and 1.k], we note particularly that Petitioner’s combination relies on Westerman’s disclosure of interpreting user inputs that exceed various thresholds as “a swipe event.” This showing is sufficient for institution to show the threshold determination required by Limitation [1.j]. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19; Pet. 22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 19). Petitioner’s combination relies on Hackborn’s animation of the grass on the wallpaper “that makes the grass blades look as if the finger is actually contacting them as it drags across the screen of the device.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 33; see Pet. 23 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 33). On this preliminary record, Petitioner’s position that “the farther the swipe, the more extreme the grass movement expected from Hackborn” naturally follows from Hackborn’s description. Pet. 23. As such, we determine Petitioner’s showing that the proposed combination of Hackborn and Westerman changes the grass appearance based at least in part of the magnitude of the swipe to be sufficient for institution for Limitation [1.k].” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 9 n.2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 26.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“At this stage, we agree with the parties that no terms need to be construed expressly. We discuss claim interpretation to the extent necessary in the context of analyzing the asserted grounds.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Hackborn’s mobile device with a touch screen able to display “live” wallpaper and Westerman’s techniques for interpreting swipe gesture inputs, including distinguishing between tap and swipe gestures using predetermined thresholds. Pet. 9–11, 12–13; see Pet. 9–14 (describing Petitioner’s “Hackborn-Westerman Combination”). Petitioner contends that “[a] POSITA reviewing Hackborn would have naturally looked to Westerman to better understand how to implement Hackborn’s teachings, for example, how to discern between different user inputs (e.g., tap or swipe).” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 52). Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner Petitioner proposes. Pet. 13–14. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that, because “recognizing predetermined touch inputs was known, and Hackborn and Westerman both describe the use of touchscreen devices and would have reasonably understood the combination of Hackborn and Westerman to be successful with no unexpected results.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 28, Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 18, 19, 25, 41, 59, 61–64).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,656,755 - PTAB · Jan 14, 2025 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Barbara A Benoit · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 27, 30, 32, 34, 59, 62, and 64 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“d. Conclusion Regarding Asserted Obviousness over Kim In sum, for the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s showing regarding claim 1 is sufficient for institution. Accordingly, having reviewed the Petition, Preliminary Response, and evidence cited therein, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that Kim renders obvious claim 1. As such, Petitioner’s showing is sufficient to institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims on all asserted grounds. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”); see SAS Inst. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). Notwithstanding, we address other claims and other grounds below, particularly in response to Patent Owner’s preliminary arguments.” slip op. at 29
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a related field, and would have had at least two years of relevant work experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof.” Pet. 10 n.4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26); Ex. 1003 ¶ 26. Dr. Cockburn also indicates that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner indicates it “does not necessarily agree with all aspects of Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, but does not believe that resolving that level is necessary to resolve the issues raised in this preliminary response.” Prelim. Resp. 4. Dr. Surati indicates that his opinions provided in his declaration in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response are “provided from the perspective of the POSITA” proposed by Dr.Cockburn. Ex. 2001 ¶ 38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). consistent with the prior art of record. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“standards for finding lexicography in a specification are exacting. Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). As Patent Owner correctly notes, the specification states: In various embodiments, the contact pressure level may be represented by a touch state. In the context of the present description, a touch state refers to a predefined subset of the range of measurable contact pressures. For example, in one embodiment, contact pressure levels may be represented as one of four predefined touch states: no touch, light touch, medium touch, and heavy touch. Ex. 1001, 19:35–41; Prelim. Resp. 27 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:35–41). Patent Owner, however, has not identified any words of manifest exclusion or restriction in that passage that indicate an intent to redefine the claim term. Rather than indicating the claims are to be restricted, the specification indicates how that the term “touch state” is to be understood in the descriptions presented in the specification. Ex. 1001, 19:36–37.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“would have been obvious over Kim and Bowens to be sufficient for institution. Petitioner generally relies on Kim’s description as discussed above. Pet. 62–68. Specifically, in its combination, Petitioner relies on Kim’s hold event and scaling operation for Limitations [1.g and 1.h]. Pet. 64–67. Petitioner additionally relies on Bowen as providing details on recognizing and acting on specific gestures on a user interface. See, e.g., Pet. 55. Petitioner provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have combined the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See, e.g., Pet. 53–62. Petitioner also provides reasons one of ordinary skill would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the references in the manner proposed by Petitioner. Pet. 60–61.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,936,114 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied
“exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79
Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,226,090 - Meta Platforms, Inc. / Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC et al. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 6, 2025 · IPR2023-01023 · APJ Lynne H Browne · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–14 are unpatentable under §103; claims 2, 10, and 17–20 were not shown unpatentable under either asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“research experience in virtual/augmented reality, including visual and audio modeling and rendering” and that “[a]dditional education can compensate for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 32–37). “Patent Owner accepts Petitioner’s definition of [a POSITA].” PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, we also adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner asserts that “[t]he challenged claims are unpatentable under any reasonable construction, including their plain meaning.” Pet. 5. We understand Petitioner’s position to be that no claim construction is required. See id. Patent Owner contends “that ‘no express constructions of the claims are necessary.’” PO Resp. 2 (citing Dec. 10). We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”). To the extent that the meaning of any claim term is addressed, we use its ordinary and customary meaning as discussed in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“preponderance of the evidence that the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault disclose or suggest “highlighting, while the user is located in the zone and with a display of the WED, one of the multiple SLPs in the zone when the PED held in the hand of the user is pointed at one of the multiple SLPs in the zone” as required by claim 1. Even if we assume (without deciding) that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is an SLP, we agree with Patent Owner that Pedrotti’s virtual fence is “at the boundary” of its “safe area” (i.e., zone), not “in the zone” as required by limitation 1[c]. PO Sur-reply 4; Ex. 1005, 11:66–12:15. In other words, the virtual fence “defines the zone itself and thus is not in the zone” as the claim requires. PO Sur-reply 4. Petitioner has not addressed this difference between what is claimed and what is disclosed by Pedrotti or explained why the combined teachings of Pedrotti, Jang, and Begault would have rendered placement of the virtual fence “in the zone” obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. We further agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately demonstrated that it would have been obvious for highlighting to occur in response to the user pointing a PED at the virtual fence (or any other virtual image). Rather, Petitioner repeatedly asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Pedrotti’s system could have used highlighting when the PED is pointed at one of the SLPs, without pointing to sufficient basis in Pedrotti’s disclosure or explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement highlighting in the manner claimed. Pet. 20–22. Dr. Welch similarly testifies, without sufficient support in Pedrotti, regarding what a person of ordinary skill in the art “could” have done. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 268–272, 275–276. Such reasoning is inadequate to demonstrate obviousness because “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (emphasis omitted) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).” slip op. at 18
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner also makes a number of new arguments in its Reply that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have used Pedrotti’s system to highlight other SLPs, such as Pedrotti’s virtual ‘weapon[s],’” relying in part on “additional references.” Reply 6–10. Petitioner, however, only briefly referenced virtual sword 802 in its Petition and did not advocate the same theories for limitation 1[c] in its Petition. See Pet. 13 (mentioning a “virtual weapon” in connection with limitation 1[a]), 19–20; Tr. 53:17–55:1. Accordingly, these arguments in the Reply are improper new arguments, which we do not consider. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) (“[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 74 (Nov. 2019) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated) (“CTPG”) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.”); Acceleration Bay, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., 908 F.3d 765, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider portions of a reply declaration “rais[ing] a new obviousness argument for [a claim] limitation that could have been made in the petition” but was not); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that the Board did not err in refusing to consider reply brief arguments advocating a “new theory” of unpatentability under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b)).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 10,798,509 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,798,509
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.