- Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00460 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable: claims 1–21 under Nishida grounds and claims 11 and 21 also over Nishida with Zuckerman; Zuckerman-only grounds fail for lack of a surrounding structure.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in textile engineering, mechanical engineering, or similar technical degree and at least 3 years of experience working with knitted textiles for use in fabric-based articles, including apparel such as footwear. Ex.1003, ¶¶34-37. For individuals with different educational backgrounds, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above. Id., ¶37. Pet. 14–15. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.” PO Resp. 13. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Id. at 99:12–25. Dr. Brookstein stated during his deposition that he has “49 years of experience of teaching textile engineering.” Id. at 97:6–8. We credit Dr. Brookstein’s testimony over that of Dr. Pastore’s because it is consistent with the reference and based on decades of experience in the textile field. Nishida’s claim 1 states that, “during the production of the material web (1), [shoe patterns] . . . are produced by . . . a textile production method within the material web.” Ex. 1005, 9. We find that Nishida’s claim language discloses the recited, “simultaneously knitting a textile element with a surrounding textile structure.”” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We find the District Court’s reasoning persuasive, and we, like the District Court, decline to adopt Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction. However, for purposes of deciding the dispositive fact issue before us, we need not determine the precise boundaries of “surrounding textile structure,” for example whether it completely or mostly encircles the textile element, and if “mostly,” what percentage of encircling is required. See Pet. Reply 2 (Petitioner characterizing Patent Owner’s position as “mostly” means over 50%); id. at 4 (Petitioner impliedly arguing that the “surrounding” need not be complete, i.e., 100%); PO Sur-reply 3–4 (Patent Owner arguing that “Zuckerman’s textile structures . . . each abut only about 25% of the periphery of Zuckerman’s blank.”). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the portion of Zuckerman’s strip 13 in purple to surround the green blank 11 (textile element) under any reasonable construction of “surrounding textile structure.” Dr. Pastore testifies that “Zuckerman discloses two separate textile structures adjacent the blank—one on each side . . . they abut only two sides of Zuckerman’s blank, with each structure abutting only about a quarter of the blank’s periphery,” and opines that “a POSITA would not have understood these two separate structures, designated by purple in the figure above, to be a textile structure ‘surrounding’ the blank [shown in green].” Ex. 2003 ¶ 54. We find Dr. Pastore’s tesimony credible as it is consistent with Zuckerman’s Figure and with the plain and ordinary meaning of “surrounding” and with the Specification of the ’749 patent (particularly Figure 9). Dr. Brookstein’s testimony, on the other hand, is based on Petitioner’s overly broad proposed construction—that any part of a textile area that is not a textile element is “surrounding textile structure”—” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 8,266,749 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - PTAB · Jul 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00342 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 2, and 6–11 based on the asserted obviousness grounds over Broggi, Huttenlocher, and Brady, with or without Bertozzi.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we institute review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The specification broadly states that the invention is “for assisting a motor vehicle guidance on the basis of image data” and raises “maneuvering trucks toward docking stations” as a “particular” application. E.g., Ex. 1001, 1:6–8. Similarly, it refers to a docking station for trucks as a “typical destination” used only “for example.” Id. at 3:43–44. Patent Owner does not point to anything in the prosecution history that would inform the construction of “potential destination.” The intrinsic record does not support Patent Owner’s narrow construction. Thus, for purposes of this decision, we do not construe “potential destination” as limited to a fixed location. No other aspect of the construction affects our determination whether to institute.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Petitioner reasons that skilled artisans would have been motivated to use Huttenlocher’s pattern-matching technique as part of Broggi’s vehicle-detection method because Broggi suggests using a “traditional pattern matching technique.” Pet. 16–17. Further, Petitioner reasons, the combination would result in “improved vehicle detection and efficient use of processing resources.” Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1006, 23; Ex. 1003 ¶ 62). For the claimed storing step, Petitioner relies additionally on Brady. Id. at 54–56. Brady discloses a visual vehicle-tracking system that keeps “a vehicle log 102 of all vehicles currently within the scene, including vehicles’ associated track histories, inertial history 104 of the scene . . . and potential future track positions.” Ex. 1007, 11:21–26. Petitioner reasons that skilled artisans would have had reason to use Brady’s teachings as asserted because “Broggi omits implementation details how the associated data is processed and stored” and because the combination “would improve Broggi’s platooning through accurate and consistent tracking of the preceding vehicle positions used in the associated vehicle path determinations, thereby improving the user experience during platooning.” Pet. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1007, 11:21–25; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67).” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Broggi as relating to platooning rather than guidance to a fixed endpoint. Prelim. Resp. 21–38. All of Patent Owner’s arguments in that regard depend on us adopting Patent Owner proposed construction for “potential destination.” Id. As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed potential destinations should be limited to fixed locations. See supra at 7–8 (§ II.B.1). Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding platooning rather than guidance to a fixed endpoint. Although Patent Owner asserts that Broggi also does not calculate an “optimized path” as claimed (Prelim. Resp. 29–33), that argument similarly depends on a construction for “potential destination” that is limited to fixed locations. See id. at 31 (arguing that the “car taught in Broggi cannot calculate an ‘optimized path’” because it “has absolutely no knowledge of the destination for the platoon”), 32 (“[I]n Broggi, the ARGO does not calculate a path to a destination because it doesn’t have any knowledge regarding the destination of the preceding car.”). We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument because, as discussed, the challenged claims do not require an optimized path to a fixed location, but instead read on an optimized path to a transitory location, such as the location of Broggi’s preceding vehicle at a given time. We agree with Petitioner that Broggi teaches an optimized path because it generates steering commands that lead toward the preceding vehicle and because those commands consider the steered vehicle’s capabilities. See Pet. 34–35. Additionally, Patent Owner challenges Petitioner’s reliance on Huttenlocher as failing to disclose the claimed “mathematical tree structure.” Prelim. Resp. 38–62. All of Patent Owner’s arguments in that regard depend on us adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “mathematical tree structure.” Id. As discussed above, we do not agree that the claimed mathematical tree structure is limited to a single tree. See supra at 8–10 (§ II.B.2). Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Huttenlocher’s tree structure. Patent Owner does not otherwise challenger Petitioner’s contentions based on Broggi, Huttenlocher, and Brady. We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, and conclude on the present record that Petitioner is likely to prevail with the unpatentability of claims 6–8 and 11. D. OBVIOUSNESS OVER BROGGI, HUTTENLOCHER, BRADY, AND BERTOZZI” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,336,805 - PTAB · Jul 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00222 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8–11, 13–16, and 19 because the petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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) (2018). The Board determines whether to institute a trial on behalf of the Director. 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). A decision to institute is “a simple yes-or-no institution choice respecting a petition, embracing all challenges included in the petition.” PGS Geophysical AS v. Iancu, 891 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“relevant time would have had a “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and 2–3 years of experience in digital imaging systems.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 16–18). In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner contends that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, physics, or a related subject, and two to three years of work experience in digital imaging.” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2005 ¶ 82). For purposes of this Decision, and based on the current record, we adopt Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art. However, we note Patent Owner’s proposed characterization of a skilled artisan is not meaningfully different than the one proposed by Petitioner. Because we find the parties’ characterizations to be consistent with the ’158 patent and the asserted prior art, our analysis below applies Petitioner’s characterization for the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Prelim. Resp. 22–23 (citing Pet. 8; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 2009 ¶ 34); see id. at 23–29 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:43–45, 1:52–53, 1:58–2:5, 2:34–47, 3:47– 57, 4:3–6, 5:3–15; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 74–81; Ex. 1015, 48; Ex. 1030, 150–151, 153, 515–517; Ex. 2011, 267–269; Ex. 2012, 2–3; Ex. 2015, 7:55–8:11, Fig. 5). At this stage of the proceeding, however, we decline to read into the accepted District Court construction of “integration time” the additional negative limitation that Patent Owner proposes––i.e., the term “scene” excludes a photograph or still image. This is an issue that warrants a more fully developed record by both parties. For now, even without having the benefit of Petitioner’s position on this issue, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would be successful in refuting Patent Owner’s proposed negative limitation. This is because the ’158 patent makes clear that the invention is intended to address “a need for a digital camera in which the effective single-frame dynamic exposure range is expanded” to accommodate situations wherein a scene may include “an indoor room with a window view of the outdoors, an outdoor scene with mixed shadows and bright sunshine, and evening or night scenes combining artificial lighting and shadows.” Ex. 1001, 1:43–49, 2:28–42, 3:39–41. The ’158 patent explains that “[i]mage capture by the camera is performed using multiple camera channels, and each camera channel is controlled during a frame under an independent integration time.” Id. at 3:47–50 (emphasis added). The ’158 patent states further that its “digital camera systems, through the use of multiple integration times, enable formation of an image having a wide dynamic range by combining the data from all camera channels to form a composite single frame.” Id. at 3:28–61 (emphasis added). Still further, the ’158 patent states for one exemplary embodiment that “[t]he integration time of at least one channel is controlled relative to the integration time of at least one other channel so that an image formed by combining data of a frame received simultaneously from the channels has a relatively large dynamic range.” Id. at 5:6–11 (emphasis added). Rather than supporting Patent Owner’s contention that the meaning of the term “integration time” excludes a photograph or still image, the above illustrative teachings from the ’158 patent establish at least a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would succeed in establishing that “integration time,” and the term “scene” more particularly, encompasses the time the image sensor collects and integrates signals for a photograph or still image. As Patent Owner appears to acknowledge, the ordinary meaning of “scene” encompasses a “shot,” as well as, a “frame” (Prelim. Resp. 27 (citing Ex. 2011, 267–269)) and, as such, it would be counterintuitive to adopt an interpretation of “integration time” that excludes the very parts that make up a scene. Additionally, dependent claim 2 suggests that “integration time” encompasses a frame of a scene because it recites, “[t]he device of claim 1,” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“demonstrated sufficiently that there is a reasonable likelihood it would be successful in establishing Matsushima discloses or renders obvious limitation 1.3. Petitioner’s evidence shows that Matsushima discloses “two independent imaging systems” controlled by CPU 30 that each form an image on the light-receiving surfaces of CCD sensors 18A and 18B via their respective imaging optics 14A and 14B. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 17, 28 (emphasis added). In that configuration, Matsushima teaches that CCD sensors 18A and 18B each has an associated CCD drive circuit 20A and 20B that apply CCD drive pulses to retrieve the accumulated signal charges of their respective CCD sensors. Id. ¶ 23. Additionally, Matsushima teaches that CCD sensors 18A and 18B each has an “electronic shutter function that controls the accumulation time (shutter speed) of the charge accumulated by each sensor via shutter gate pulses” and that the shutter speed is determined based on integration of the Red, Green, and Blue signals in a single frame by the integration circuit 60A and 60B. Id. ¶¶ 24, 31, 34–35. Patent Owner notably does not dispute Petitioner’s cited evidence shows Matsushima discloses a processing component configured to control the integration time for CCD sensors 18A and 18B. See Prelim. Resp. 34– 50. Instead, despite Matsushima’s teaching that its imaging systems are independent, Patent Owner argues that Matsushima does not disclose independently controlling the integration time for CCD sensors 18A and 18B. Id. This is so, according to Patent Owner, because Matsushima describes operating CCD drive circuits 20A and 20B synchronously and describes using a single, common shutter speed for each of CCD sensors 18A and 18B. Id. at 35–38 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 17, 23, 27, 31, 34–35; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 88–92). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner’s argument raises genuine issues of disputed fact that would be best resolved on a fully developed record, rather than undermining the reasonable likelihood of success of Petitioner’s contention. In particular, going forward, the record would benefit from the parties addressing the issue raised by Patent Owner regarding whether Matsushima discloses to a skilled artisan individually controlling the shutter speed of each CCD sensor 18A and 18B. For example, although Patent Owner notes that Matsushima suggests an embodiment that may use a single, common shutter speed value and an intention for each circuit to be driven synchronously, it is unclear why those facts demonstrate Matsushima fails to suggest individually controlling the integration time of the disclosed independent imaging systems. To the extent Patent Owner is suggesting that limitation 1.3 does not encompass individually controlling the integration time of CCDs sensor 18A and 18B to operate synchronously with a single, common shutter speed value, Patent Owner should explain how the intrinsic record of the ’158 patent and the understanding of a skilled artisan at the time of the invention supports that position. Nevertheless, at this time and on this record, we determine there is a reasonable likelihood of success that Matsushima renders unpatentable claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13–16, and 19.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,232,158 - PTAB · Jul 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00221 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim would have been shown unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- 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 . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Upon consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we are persuaded that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the declaration testimony of Dr. Kotzin, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’889 patent [w]ould have been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the wireless communications systems that are pertinent to the ’889 patent. That person would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of wireless communication systems or design of similar communication systems. Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 25). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s contention as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally, Prelim. Resp. Based on this record, and because there is no dispute, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’889 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art, itself, can reflect appropriate level of ordinary skill in art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We point out that in contrast with Patent Owner’s case law, the “indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance usually carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “That ‘a’ or ‘an’ can mean ‘one or more’ is best described as a rule, rather than merely as a presumption or even a convention.” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The subsequent use of definite articles ‘the’ or ‘said’ in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.” Id. “The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” 01 Communique Lab’y, Inc. v. LogMeIn, Inc., 687 F.3d 1292, 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2012). But for the time being, we need not decide this issue.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successInstituted
“D. Ground 1: Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 – Obviousness over Dateki Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ’889 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Dateki. Pet. 21–47. Patent Owner opposes. Prelim. Resp. 33–64. Having considered the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that the record establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on this asserted ground of unpatentability. In their Preliminary Response, Patent Owner has limited the dispute at the institution stage mainly towards limitations [1.2], [1.3] and [1.4] and the claimed “control message.” We, therefore, address specifically the parties’ arguments with respect to these claim limitations.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,664,889 - Bowmar Archery LLC v. Matthew FuttereNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00401 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, and 17 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. For purposes of this decision and based on the record before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. Also, we note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“1. Ferrule Petitioner argues that the ’177 patent “defines ‘ferrule’ as a ‘generally cylindrical body,’” which interpretation Petitioner asserts “is consistent with the ordinary meaning to [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:53–55; Ex. 1019 ¶ 61). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s proposed interpretation of this claim term. See generally PO Resp. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested interpretation of “ferrule.” 2. Blade Member Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“As discussed in section II.C.2 above, we interpret a “blade member” to have a cutting surface. Petitioner does not support adequately its assertion that Lint’s barbs 19 have a cutting surface. Petitioner acknowledges that Lint discloses “barb 19,” but Petitioner merely labels the barbs as blade members in annotated versions of Lint Figure 2. Pet. 21–22, 24. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Kuhn, provides substantially identical testimony, also failing to explain how Lint’s barbs have a cutting surface or perform a cutting function. See Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 68, 70. Such conclusory assertions fail to satisfy Petitioner’s burden of persuasion. To the contrary of Petitioner’s assertions, Lint discloses that its barbs do not perform a cutting function. Lint discloses that its barbs retract to the closed position upon impact with an animal. Ex. 1002, 2:62–67. Only when the arrowhead has “completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” does the spring urge the barbs into the extended position “to retain the arrowhead within the animal.” Id. at 2:67–70.6 Lint discloses that its barbs provide 6 During the hearing, Petitioner’s counsel argued that Lint’s disclosure of its barbs deploying “[a]fter the arrowhead 10 has completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” means the spring urges the barbs forward after the resistance to the removal of the arrow from an animal (id. at 1:53–57, 2:67–70), but Lint does not disclose its barbs as performing any cutting function. Thus, Lint’s barbs are not blade members with a cutting surface as we have interpreted the term above. Petitioner has failed to explain adequately how Lint discloses first and second blade members as recited in independent claims 1 and 11.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“A claimed modification to the prior art may be an obvious design choice if the claimed structure performs the same function as in the prior art and it presents no novel or unexpected result over the prior art. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975) (finding that the use of the claimed feature “would be an obvious matter of design choice” when it “solves no stated problem” and “presents no novel or unexpected result” over the disclosed alternatives); Ex parte Maeda, Appeal No. 2010-009814, at 6–7 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2012) (informative) (“‘design choice’ may be appropriate where the applicant fails to set forth any reasons why the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would result in a different function or give unexpected results” (citing In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298–99 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The ’177 patent explains that the purpose of the recited blade members is to maximize the cutting surface of the arrowhead through an animal’s soft flesh to increase the likelihood of a successful kill and minimize undue suffering of the animal. Ex. 1001, 1:26–30, 4:8–10, 4:21–24. The purpose of Lint’s barbs, on the other hand, is to resist removal of the arrow from an animal. Ex. 1002, 2:67–70. Indeed, Lint discloses that only when the arrowhead has “completely penetrated the flesh of an animal” does the spring urge the barbs into the extended position. Id. Thus, contrary to the conclusory assertions of Petitioner and Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Kuhn (see Pet. 49–51; Ex. 1019 ¶ 119), the recited blade members and Lint’s barbs perform vastly different functions. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Kuhn explains adequately how the proposed modification to Lint’s barbs would be a mere matter of design choice. For at least the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s first alternative” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,043,177 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,043,177 - PTAB · May 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00057 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all asserted grounds because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable, principally failing to address the required hardware action.
RulingsInstitution decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Turning now to our application of SuperGuide, we note the language of the claims and the specification, as correctly recognized by the Patent Owner, confirm that the conjunctive construction of the phrase “at least one of [A] the display, [B] the audio and [C] the hardware (HW) action” is correct. Prelim. Resp. 9–10.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We agree with Patent Owner. First, the construction of the phrase “at least one of [A] the display, [B] the audio and [C] the hardware (HW) action” is conjunctive in light of the language of the claims and the specification of the ’887 patent. As such, Petitioner has the burden, but fails to show all three (3) components to be reproduced at Yun’s mobile device, including: [A] the display, [B] the audio and [C] the hardware (HW) action by the HW component of the mobile device. Second, as Patent Owner observes, and we agree, “Petitioner ignores the requirement for ‘the hardware (HW) action’ entirely” and does not even mention any “hardware (HW) action.” Prelim. Resp. 14.” slip op. at 22
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied merits
“35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4. We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. Upon consideration of the contentions and the evidence of record at this preliminary stage, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’887 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims of the ’887 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached
“K. Discretion to Denial Under § 314(a) Patent Owner argues that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and not institute trial, given the state of the parallel district court litigation. Prelim. Resp. 26–38. Because we determine that Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on the merits of its challenges, we need not consider Patent Owner’s arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 34
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,934,887 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00821 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 23 is unpatentable as obvious over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1036 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner waived entry of a Preliminary Response, did not enter a Patent Owner Response, and accordingly does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 23. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 165– 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 165–166. For purposes of this Decision we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Matal, 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this Decision.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“advance arguments directed to claim 23. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 23, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda. 5. Conclusion on Obviousness For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 23 is unpatentable over the combined teachings of Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“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” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 17
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner relies solely on the testimony of Dr. Cooklev to support its proffered claim construction. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34). Dr. Cooklev testifies, “[b]ased on my review of the patent and intrinsic record, [“device-specific target location”] has a plain and ordinary meaning and is used by the claims with that meaning, which requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 34. Other than further opining that “I see no lexicography or disclaimer in the intrinsic record indicating that ‘device-specific target [location]’ refers to a location that is generally applicable to numerous devices, or that the term otherwise has a meaning broader than its plain and ordinary meaning,” Dr. Cooklev provides no support for why the claimed “device-specific target location” “requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” See id. We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“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” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“c) Analysis Patent Owner’s Response does not advance arguments directed to claims 1 and 15. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a patent owner forfeits an issue presented in its preliminary response if it fails to renew the issue in its response after trial is instituted). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 15 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,341,811 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,341,811 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00154 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Spain-I, Hunzinger, Nanda, and, for certain claims, additional references.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the 9 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 1. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 166. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally, PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary for institution, we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent. Apart from this, where neither party proposes any particular construction or indicates disagreement as to the meaning of any claim language, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 185 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 187. For claim 6, as discussed above, Petitioner argues that Spain-I teaches remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,594,698 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00153 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 17–20, and 24–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations; the Board did not reach the additional Damarla and Houri grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“In the Petition, Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 4. Patent Owner states in its Patent Owner Response that it “agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.” PO Resp. 5. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 1, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Pet. 5–41. We adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 186 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 188.” slip op. at 27
Patent outcomesUS 8,170,583 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,170,583
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.