- Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00159 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 9, 14, 15, and 19 are unpatentable over Minami; claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20 were not shown unpatentable over Good or Munsing.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“lululemon contends, and Nike does not dispute, that a person skilled in the art in the relevant time frame would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, textile 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” and such person’s “additional experience compensates for any differences in that person’s education as stated above.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex.1003 ¶¶ 33–35); see also PO Resp. 14 (“For purposes of this proceeding, Nike applies lululemon’s proposed level of skill in the art.”). We find that lululemon’s proposed definition is consistent with the problems and solutions described in the ’046 patent and the prior art of record. Thus, we adopt the parties’ agreed-upon definition of the level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We are not persuaded by lululemon’s attempt to equate the term “channel” in that passage with an open-periphery configuration. Nowhere does that passage indicate that the “channel” has an open-periphery. Instead, lululemon merely presumes, without support, that channels are open-periphery structures. More accurately, the terms “tunnel” and “channel” in the passage cited by lululemon are used synonymously. That is made clear by the overall context of the ’046 patent at issue, which is directed to how tubular rib structures 126 are formed by “first” and “second” curved portions 416 and 418 that are “knitted together” to define “hollow tube 112.” See Ex. 1001, 10:16–11:14, Figs. 4, 5 (emphasis added). In particular, the sentence cited by lululemon describes hollow tube 112 as being “disposed between” first and second curved portions 416 and 418, which Figures 4 and 5 of the ’046 patent clearly depict in a closed-periphery configuration. See id. at 10:66–11:3, Figs. 4, 5. Moreover, the very next sentence expressly describes that hollow tube 112 has “a generally cylindrical or elliptical shape” wherein “[t]he diameter of one hollow tube and the diameter of other hollow tubes may differ in some embodiments.” Id. at 11:3–14 (emphases added). We are not aware of any open-periphery channels being described as having a cylindrical or elliptical shape, nor are we aware of such a channel being described as having a diameter. Thus, lululemon’s proposed claim construction ignores the context surrounding the ’046 patent’s description of the tubular rib structures when it describes them as having the configuration of a tunnel or channel.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Nike, given our construction of the claimed “tubular structures.” As shown in annotated Figures 1, 3, and 4 of Good (reproduced below), Good discloses a sock 12 having rib portions 22 (red) and webbed areas 24 (green). See PO Resp. 19. lululemon contends that Good’s rib portions 22 meet the claimed “tubular structures” because each rib portion 22 “roll[s] substantially together in the relaxed condition” and “has the shape of a tube, namely an elongate hollow structure.” Pet. 29–30. In support, lululemon points to Good’s Figure 3 (reproduced below center) as allegedly showing the tubular shape of Good’s rib portions 22. Id. at 30. Annotated Figure 3 is a vertical cross-section of rib portions 22 (red) shown in Good’s Figure 1. But, as Nike correctly notes, Good’s rib portions 22 are “C-shaped knitted portions,” which when stretched, go from an essentially C-shaped configuration (Figure 3) to a relatively flat, linear configuration (Figure 4). PO Resp. 19–20 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 48–49). Nowhere does Good disclose that the ends of C-shaped rib portions 22 ever meet and remain in a closed periphery configuration to form a hollow tube per our construction of “tubular structures” (as discussed above in Section II.B). In at least this way, Good’s C-shaped rib portions 22 differ from the claimed “tubular structures.”7 Thus, we find that Good does not disclose or otherwise suggest the claimed “tubular structures,” as properly construed, meaning that lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Good either anticipates claims 1–3, 7, 16–18, and 20, or, alternatively, renders obvious claim 3.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“In our Institution Decision, we said that Munsing lacks the claimed “tubular structures” because “nowhere does Munsing indicate that the rows of stitches or loops form a rib that is tubular-like, let alone one with a closed periphery.” Inst. Dec. 10–12. During the trial phase, lululemon’s expert likewise agreed, conceding (on cross-examination) that Munsing only discloses non-tubular structures. See Ex. 2007, 40:9–41:11 (“Q [by Patent Owner’s counsel]: So you agree that . . . Munsing only discloses a nontubular rib? A [by lululemon’s expert]: That’s what I said.”). Nowhere does lululemon rebut that admission by its own expert, despite Nike noting it explicitly as a reason for rejecting Ground 2. Compare PO Resp. 25–26 (noting the admission of lululemon’s expert), with Pet. Reply 1–26 (addressing only Grounds 1 and 3, while omitting any mention of Ground 2, which is based on Munsing). Nor does lululemon ever dispute the preliminary findings in our Institution Decision as to why Munsing is not an anticipatory reference. Compare Inst. Dec. 10–12, with Pet. Reply 1–22. Thus, lululemon fails to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Munsing anticipates challenged claims 1–3, 7, 17, 18, and 20.” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 9,375,046 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,375,046 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00212 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9, and 11–14 were held unpatentable as obvious over Tajima and Foster or Foster and Hayhurst; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 4 (citing Bhattacharjee Decl. ¶¶ 41– 45). Petitioner further asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. At the institution stage, Patent Owner did not oppose Petitioner’s assertions or provide a definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp.; Rubin I Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of his declaration). We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 11. Post-institution, neither party has contested this description. See Rubin II Decl. ¶ 20 (accepting Dr. Bhattacharjee’s definition). For the reasons given, we maintain our previous description of the person of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 0111. Dr. Rubin testifies, succinctly, that “I do not believe that a [person of ordinary skill] would understand that Tajima uses the term ‘information regarding the key’ to refer to the key. If Tajima meant to say the ‘key,’ there would be no need to use the phrase ‘information regarding the key.’” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 41. He further testifies that “[w]hen Tajima wishes to refer to a ‘key,’ it does so directly” (citing many instances where Tajima makes explicit reference to keys). Id. ¶ 42 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 86, 88, 89). We find Dr. Rubin’s reasoning on this issue persuasive. On the other hand, we find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s response less convincing. Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 5–23. We find that he does not 5 Petitioner states that it does not rely on the doctrine of inherency to establish that this limitation is met by Tajima. Pet. Reply 2. understand that Tajima uses the terms “information regarding the key” and “key information” to refer to an encryption key. Id. ¶ 5 (citing Bhattacharjee I Decl. ¶ 103, 131). Lacking support for disclosure of an encryption key in Tajima itself, Dr. Bhattacharjee turns to other references, including Foster. Id. ¶¶ 7–9. Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies that “Foster’s use of the term ‘key information’ to describe information that includes the key and additional information . . . explains why Tajima did not just say ‘key’ when referring to the information attached to the data fragments.” Id. ¶ 8. Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony is unconvincing. In Foster, there is explicit disclosure of including the encrypted title key itself in the header extension. Ex. 1006 ¶ 66 (“As depicted, header extension 118 includes encrypted title key 112 . . . “). In contrast, Dr. Bhattacharjee cites no similar disclosure in Tajima. In fact, Dr. Bhattacharjee’s reliance on other references to support anticipation runs contrary to the rule that “[a] claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (emphasis added). We do not find Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony based on Foster and other references convincing of anticipation by Tajima. Nor do we find Petitioner’s alternative obviousness challenge based on Tajima persuasive. Pet. 22. The Petition includes a single-sentence explanation of this obviousness contention: “Even if Tajima had not disclosed that its key information includes the corresponding key, that would have been an obvious and conventional way to implement what Tajima discloses—i.e., a system that needs only the key information to decrypt data fragments and not additional key management infrastructure.” Id. (citing paragraph 104 of his initial declaration mirrors the Petition and provides no record citations to support his opinion of obviousness. Such unsupported expert testimony is entitled to little weight. “Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 40 (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”) (“Opinions expressed without disclosing the underlying facts or data may be given little or no weight.”).6” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Patent Owner responds that Petitioner “fails to demonstrate” a motivation to combine the references. PO Resp. 9. Patent Owner argues that “Tajima and Foster are directed to entirely different fields and to different problems.” Id. We disagree. As Petitioner points out, both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data, as is the ’116 patent. Pet. Reply 13–14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 44; Ex. 1006 ¶ 3). Dr. Bhattacharjee testifies, “Tajima and Foster also both describe techniques for securing data using encryption and securely storing keys with encrypted data.” Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 109–114; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 64–71). Patent Owner argues Foster’s disclosure of a KEK would have been “redundant” to Tajima’s key-securing obfuscation technique. PO Resp. 18. We find this argument is unavailing. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s argument “ignores Tajima’s vulnerability that Foster’s key-encryption addresses.” Pet. Reply 16. More specifically, “[r]equiring an attacker to obtain KEKs to decrypt Tajima’s encryption keys in addition to de-obfuscating them is not ‘redundant’ to only having to de-obfuscate them.” Pet. Reply 16 (emphasis omitted) (citing Bhattacharjee II Decl. ¶¶ 41–44). We find that Petitioner’s argument for combining the references is persuasive for the reasons given. Patent Owner further argues that Tajima and Foster address different problems and disclose solutions that are “fundamentally at odds.” PO Resp. 9–16, 25–27. Patent Owner asserts that “Foster’s system requires synchronizing the transmission of encrypted content packets with the keys used to encrypt those packets, so that each packet can be viewed immediately upon receipt.” Id. at 15 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner attaching it to a different data fragment, the problem Foster sought to solve is the ‘need . . . for a key used to encrypt content to be itself encrypted, and transmitted as an integral part of the [same] content.’” Id. (alterations in original) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 7). We are not persuaded by this argument. As noted supra, for the reasons given, we find that both Tajima and Foster are in the field of securing data from unauthorized access. Pet. Reply 13. Furthermore, as Petitioner points out, we find that in Petitioner’s combination of Tajima and Foster, Tajima’s data (which does not require synchronization) is secured, not Foster’s. See Pet. 34–36 (providing reasons for encrypting Tajima’s keys); Pet. Reply 17–18 (“Synchronization of Foster’s data is irrelevant to Tajima-Foster because Tajima-Foster does not restore Foster’s data.”). Thus, we find that Patent Owner’s argument based on the need to synchronize Foster’s data for streaming is unavailing. We have considered Patent Owner’s other arguments and find them lacking. See, e.g., Patent Owner’s Sur-reply, which repeats the arguments that Tajima and Foster are in a “different field,” “fundamentally at odds,” “[i]n direct contrast,” and that applying Foster’s KEK teachings to Tajima would be “redundant.” PO Sur-reply 2–9. For reasons already discussed, we find these arguments unconvincing. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has proved by a” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Dr. Rubin explains that Kerckhoff’s Principle “holds that a cryptosystem should be secure, even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge.” Rubin II Decl. ¶ 94. Citing this testimony, Patent Owner argues, “Shyu’s anti-piracy system is a prototypical attempt to achieve security through obscurity, to the extent it proposes to conceal or obscure the encryption algorithms.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner does not persuasively respond to this argument. Pet. Reply 20–21. Petitioner argues that “Shyu does not use secret algorithms.” Id. at 20. Instead, according to Petitioner “Shyu selects from among known algorithms to secure different data segments.” Id. However, we find Shyu’s disclosure that “the scrambling algorithm and the key word for the source data are dynamically changed to effectively guard against piracy” is telling evidence that the underlying algorithms themselves are not secure, and therefore Kerckhoff’s principle applies here. See Ex. 1016, 1:37–39. We also find persuasive reasoning in Patent Owner’s assertion that “[c]ombining associated with maintaining multiple encryption algorithms and tracking encryption algorithm ‘metadata,’ without providing any substantial security.” PO Resp. 34–35. In sum, for the reasons given, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove sufficiently that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Tajima and Rivest. Further, Petitioner fails to demonstrate that even assuming that Tajima and Rivest would have been combined, a person of ordinary skill would have further combined their teachings with Shyu.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,178,116 mixed§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,178,116 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00048 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited references do not teach flanges physically contacting along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18. In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“shaped portion configured to receive the structural component,” “a connection portion,” and “an extension portion,” and that “the extension portion spac[es] the channel-shaped portion from the [connection portion]” and “the channel-shaped portion, the extension portion and the connection portion are rigidly fixed with respect to one another.” Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (emphases added). Claim 1’s repeated use of “portion[s]” to delineate between the three main elements of the hanger, i.e., channel-shaped portion, connection portion, and extension portion, shows or at least strongly suggests substantial flexibility as to the specific location where one “portion” transitions to another “portion” in the fire wall hanger. Similarly, although claim 1 recites that the “channel-shaped portion” is “configured to receive the structural component,” claim 1 recites no limitation precluding other “portions” of the hanger from also “receiv[ing]” or otherwise contacting the structural component. Patent Owner argues that “channel-shaped portion” should be construed to mean “[the] portion of the hanger that forms a channel configured to receive the structural component.” PO Resp. 19. Petitioner and its expert, Mr. Fennell, agree with this meaning (Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–20), and so do we. Indeed, claim 1 plainly recites this as discussed above. But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner’s cited evidence provides sufficient rational reasons to combine Yamaguchi and Bundy to arrive at the invention of claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” slip op. at 46
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Analysis Patent Owner argues, “[w]hile the asserted prior art does teach flanges or sidewalls that are in opposed relation to each other, none of Adams, Cullen, or Yamaguchi teach that these flanges or sidewalls engage each other along a juncture.” PO Resp. 42–43; see PO Sur-reply 6 (Patent Owner arguing, “Adams’s, Cullen’s, and Yamaguchi’s extension flanges are spaced well apart.”). Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary depend wholly on its proposed interpretation of the term “engaging” (Pet. 58–60; Pet. Reply 30–31), which we reject, as discussed above. Although Yamaguchi (and Cullen and Adams) may teach extension flanges in opposed, face-to-face relation, Petitioner does not explain, let alone with particularity or persuasively, how Yamaguchi’s (or Cullen’s or Adams’) flanges, which would wind up located on opposing sides of a joist (where a joist is mounted in the hanger), also teach such extension flanges engaging each other along a juncture—indeed, what juncture? See PO Sur-reply 7 (“Beyond asserting that the word ‘engaging’—standing alone—does not require ‘touching contact,’ [Petitioner] still does not address how the extension flanges of Yamaguchi, Cullen, and Adams can be said to ‘engage’ each other.”). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find Petitioner does not sufficiently establish that the combination of Yamaguchi and Bundy teaches or even fairly suggests a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall,” as recited in dependent claims 38 and 91.” slip op. at 70
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00049 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted references did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the ’626 patent, “would have had an education background of, or practical experience providing an equivalent to, a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Structural Engineering or a related/equivalent field and at least four years of work experience in construction connector design/development.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15). Patent Owner does not dispute this assessment. PO Resp. 17–18.” slip op. at 20
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Judge Rich’s guidance from over thirty years ago: in all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker, 150 F.3d at 1369. Claims 38 and 91 recite, in relevant part, a fire wall hanger wherein “the first and second extension flanges engag[e] each other along a juncture, the juncture arranged to be positioned within the two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall.” Ex. 1001, 15:28–33, 21:41–46 (emphasis added). On its face, this limitation requires not only that the first and second extension flanges “engage” each other, but also do so “along a juncture.” This recitation of the flanges “engaging” each other along a “juncture” (i.e., a place where things join) strongly supports interpreting the subject limitation to require physical contact (i.e., touching) at least along some portion of the flanges (such as shown in Figure 2, reproduced above). To the contrary, nothing in claims 38 or 91, or their underlying independent claims, suggests that two flanges “engaging each other along a juncture” means or even includes within its scope two flanges “symmetrical to each other across a juncture,” as urged by Petitioner (Pet. 59).” slip op. at 67
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Petitioner persuasively argues, and we agree: There is certainly no requirement that the hanger contain a component “that prevents the back face of the drywall (or any portion thereof) being secured directly to the face of the wall framing” or that the back flange plane “define” or “bound” the space that receives drywall as alleged by Patent Owner. POR [PO Resp.], 25-26. As explained in the Petition and supported by Mr. Fennell’s testimony, Yamaguchi-Bundy’s modified hanger has an extension portion that is long enough to permit two layers of 5/8-inch-thick drywall (i.e., an extending flange having a length over 1 and 1/4 inches) to be received between the channel-shaped portion and the back flange plane. Pet., 28-30, 37; EX1003, ¶96. That is all that is required. EX1046, ¶32. Pet. Reply 12.” slip op. at 38
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · PGR2023-00047 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–37, 39–90, and 92–105 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 38 and 91 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not teach flanges physically touching along a juncture.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of these cases would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’626 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and undisputed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Fennell (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 12–15).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“But Patent Owner then urges us to narrow the meaning of “portion” itself such that “channel-shaped portion” requires “all portions of the hanger which directly bound the channel that receives the structural component.” PO Resp. 19 (emphases added). Patent Owner argues the Specification makes this “clear.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:28–31). Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (PO Resp. 19), we find no support in claim 1 to further narrow the interpretation of “portion” in “channel-shaped portion” to mean every portion of the hanger which directly bounds the channel that receives the structural component. See Ex. 1001, 12:14–36 (claim 1). We, like Petitioner, similarly find no support in the Specification or limited prosecution history (see Pet. 5–6), and Patent Owner does not direct us to any, showing that the inventor acted as its own lexicographer or disavowed any claim scope to allot this narrowed interpretation to the subject limitation. See Pet. Reply 3 (“Nowhere does the ’626 patent specification describe that all portions of the hanger directly bounding channel 52 constitute the channel-shaped portion.” (citing Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 16–18; Ex. 1001, 4:39–47)); PO Resp. 19. Further, as argued by Petitioner (Pet. Reply 4–5), Patent Owner’s proposed construction limiting “portion” to “all portions” of the hanger that “directly bound the channel that receives the structural component” could cause the “channel-shaped portion” on the same physical hanger to change depending on which type of structural component an installer were to choose to use in construction: Patent Owner’s claim construction improperly focuses on the wall assembly intended to be used with the recited hanger. The claims, however, are directed to a hanger, not a wall assembly. When assessing what part of a hanger constitutes a “channel-shaped portion” and an “extension portion,” [the skilled artisan] would consider the physical features of the hanger itself and the natural divisions between those features. [The skilled artisan] would not assess the claim language and its application to the prior art by speculating how an installer might later install the hanger with a joist or an entire wall assembly, which may differ from installation to installation. Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1046 ¶ 19). We find this defect further supports a broader interpretation of “channel-shaped portion” as discussed above. Accordingly, based on the complete record before us, we determine” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, inter alia, that Yamaguchi teaches a joist hanger with an extension portion defining a space between its back flange and channel-shaped portion, and Bundy teaches to size a space created by an extension portion of its joist hanger to receive two layers of ⅝-inch-thick drywall between its back flange plane and channel-shaped portion. Pet. 16–18 (citing 1003 ¶¶ 75–78; Ex. 1007, 5:16–18, Fig. 1; Ex. 1041 (“Perspective View”; “Usage View”)); see id. at 17–18 (discussing “advantages” of two layers of 5/8" drywall as “fire resistance in a fire separation wall”). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to receive drywall between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to provide a shielded fire resistant wooden frame wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 78–79; Ex. 1007, 2:10–24); see id. ([“The skilled artisan] would have optimized the size of the spacing between Yamaguchi’s back flange and channel-shaped portion to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall according to the size preference described by Bundy for optimal fire protection and wall integrity.” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 80; Ex. 1007, 5:10–22)). Petitioner concludes: This modification to Yamaguchi would have been nothing more than applying a known technique (Bundy’s spacing a hanger seat from a wall frame by distance sufficient to accommodate two 5/8”-thick-drywall sheets for fire resistance) to a similar device (Yamaguchi’s hanger having a spacing of indeterminate length) to obtain the predictable result of a firewall hanger having a space between its channel-shaped portion and a wall frame large enough for receiving drywall therebetween, thereby “protect[ing] the structural members of a building.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1007, 5:18–20; Ex. 1003 ¶ 80). Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Yamaguchi as discussed above, “because doing so would still allow Yamaguchi’s hanger to perform its intended function of securing a joist to a wall.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1041, 1; Ex. 1003 ¶ 81). Petitioner argues, “[r]ecognizing that Yamaguchi’s and Bundy’s hangers are constructed from sheet metal,” the skilled artisan “would have understood how to modify the size of Yamaguchi’s extension portions to accommodate two layers of 5/8”-thick-drywall while still allowing Yamaguchi’s hanger to secure a joist’s end to a frame wall.” Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–83; Ex. 1007, 4:47–51); see id. at 19–20 (discussing that although “Yamaguchi’s described setting is a sill plate,” the skilled artisan “would have been motivated to use Yamaguchi’s hanger on a wood frame wall in particular so that sheathing could be installed in the space behind the joist as taught by Bundy” (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 81–82)). Based on the foregoing and the complete record before us, we find” slip op. at 46
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“artisan would have interpreted or understood the teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, as well as of the combination of those references, are unsupported attorney-arguments. See In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.”). Patent Owner cites no evidence of how the skilled artisan would have understood the combined teachings of Yamaguchi and Bundy, or how such an understanding would support Patent Owner’s attorney arguments. Indeed, Patent Owner did not file any expert testimony in any of the three subject cases, despite that we must resolve the legal question of obviousness on the basis of underlying factual determinations, particularly the scope and content of the prior art and any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art from the vantage point of the skilled artisan. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18; see Pet. Reply 2 (“As a threshold matter, the Board’s findings in its Institution Decision should be carried forward to its final written decision because Patent Owner did not submit an expert declaration in support of its arguments.”); but see PO Sur-reply 1–4 (“[T]here is no requirement that a party rely exclusively on expert testimony in Post Grant Review proceedings or that attorney argument must be disregarded.”). To the contrary, Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Fennell, persuasively testifies in detail how and why the skilled artisan would have combined the teachings and suggestions of Yamaguchi and Bundy to achieve the invention of claim 1, including the features of limitation 1.3.B. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–83, 96; Ex. 1046 ¶¶ 30–40. We find Mr. Fennell’s testimony credible (and uncontroverted).” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,649,626 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,649,626 - Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc. / Lululemon USA Inc. v. Nike, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · May 13, 2024 · IPR2023-00189 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 7, 8, and 11–16 are unpatentable over Arrasvuori; claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 17–20 are not unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’256 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Lynch (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 43, 44).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“simultaneously communicate in real-time to the first user at the first location and the second user at the second location, an interface indicating whether the challenge has been met.” Ex. 1001, 40:64–67 (emphasis added). The claim language itself suggests that “continuously generat[ing]” an interface in “real-time” allows the interface to indicate whether a challenge “has been met,” and doing so “in real-time” suggests that updates to the interface are generated as developments occur that may affect whether the challenge “has been met.” Notably, the subject claim limitation explicitly recites “continuously” generating the interface “in real-time”; it does not recite— but easily could have if intended—“periodically” generating the interface (i.e., at predetermined time intervals independent of the occurrence of developments that may affect whether the challenge has been met).3” slip op. at 29
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityReference is prior artDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and 102(e) based on its filing and publication dates. Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not contest the prior art status of Arrasvuori. Also, on this record, we have no evidence of an invention date other than the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we determine that Arrasvuori qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because Arrasvuori’s publication date of October 11, 2007, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is March 3, 2008, and under § 102(e) because Arrasvuori’s filing date of March 29, 2006, is before the earliest possible effective filing date of the challenged claims (March 3, 2008). Ex. 1001, codes (22), (60), (63); Ex. 1005, code (22), (43).” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Arrasvuori discloses (a) “[m]onitoring” of “users performing real- world fitness tasks” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 38), using (b) “monitoring equipment . . . integrated into . . . wireless nodes and/or other computers of users, and/or [] attached to bodies of users” (id. at ¶ 39 (emphasis added)), where (c) “[u]sers might . . . wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers” (id. (emphasis added)), and where (d) “[t]he phrase[] ‘computer’ . . . refer[s] but [is] not limited to . . . a computerized watch” (id. at ¶ 90 (emphasis added); see id. at ¶ 40 (disclosing that “employed monitoring equipment might include one or more sensors”)). We find that these descriptions in Arrasvuori provide an anticipatory disclosure, particularly to the skilled artisan, of the limitation “wirelessly-connected sensor worn on an appendage of a first user.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 45; Ex. 2006, 84:10-85:22. Although Arrasvuori does not recite in a single sentence the substance of disclosures (a) through (d) above, such as explicitly stating that its “wireless node is a computerized watch,” this is not necessary for the skilled artisan to understand that Arrasvuori discloses such a feature. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d at 832–33 (anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”). Moreover, as argued by Petitioner, Arrasvuori’s disclosure of sensors “attached to bodies of users” and of users “wear[ing]” sensors itself discloses the subject limitation as broadly recited, even without considering the additional disclosure of a computerized watch. See Pet. Reply 17 (“Arrasvuori teaches wrist-worn sensors by stating that its users can ‘wear their wireless nodes and/or other computers.’” (citing Ex. 1005 ¶39)).” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 9,278,256 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,278,256 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Lynk Labs, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 19, 2023 · IPR2021-01576 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 13–18 are not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations fail to teach or suggest multiple LED packages connected in series.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 41–42). Patent Owner argues that its definition is superior because Petitioner’s “and/or” qualifier “might be read as considering a person who has ‘related circuit design’ experience but no experience with ‘LED devices’ to be a POSITA.” Id. at 9. Patent Owner further views Petitioner’s “or a related field” phrasing as potentially including a person who has no experience with LED devices. Id. We agree with Patent Owner on both points. We agree with Patent Owner that Patent Owner’s proposal is more consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’979 patent and prior art of record. We adopt Patent Owner’s definition of the level of skill but note that had we adopted Petitioner’s level of skill, we would not have reached a different outcome here.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“specification support its construction of “formed or mounted to” as encompassing indirect attachment to the substrate. Neither the plain claim language nor the specification requires the phosphor coating to be directly attached to the substrate. Limitation 1(c) recites, wherein the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating to produce a change in a color or a quality of light emitted from the LED chips, wherein the LED chips, the power connection leads, and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to a flexible substrate that is sufficiently flexible to be formed into a cylindrical shape[.] Ex. 1001, 22:7–12 (emphasis added). The claim is inartfully written, as it requires the LEDs to comprise a phosphor coating but then separately recites that the LED chips and the phosphor coating are formed or mounted to the substrate. But Petitioner correctly explains that the plain meaning requires that “the LED chips comprise a phosphor coating” and that “the [same] phosphor coating” (included in the LED chips) is “formed or mounted to a flexible substrate.” Reply 2. In other words, the use of the term “the” before “phosphor coating” indicates reliance on the antecedent basis of “LED chips comprise a phosphor coating,” and thus the same coating of the LED chips is formed or mounted to the substrate. Logically, by including a phosphor coating with the LED chips, which are formed or mounted to the substrate, the coating of these chips is also indirectly formed or mounted to the substrate. Conversely, it would be illogical to conclude that the claim recites two phosphor coatings, one attached to the LED chips and another attached directly to the substrate, because the structure of the claim refers to a single phosphor coating of the LED chips. Even Patent Owner concedes that the claim encompasses the phosphor coating indirectly being mounted or attached to the substrate (in addition to being directly attached). PO Resp. 11 (“The ordinary English reading of the claim language does not encompass the phosphor coating only being indirectly attached to the substrate, instead, the language indicates that the coating is directly applied to the substrate.” (emphasis changed)), 13 (“the phosphor coating . . . is not merely attached to the substrate indirectly”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“After considering Patent Owner’s arguments, which we address below, we agree with Petitioner that the combination of Wojnarowski and Martin discloses this limitation and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner. Briefly, we summarize our findings, and then we address the parties’ arguments in more detail. First, we agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that Wojnarowski’s AC input voltage would have been converted to DC voltage in light of the bridge rectifier and capacitor disclosed by Wojnarowski. Pet. 25; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 119– 20 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1005, 7:59–62, Fig. 24); PO Resp. 35–36 (acknowledging Wojnarowski discloses converting an AC input to a DC voltage). Second, we further agree with Petitioner, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that excessive current due to too few LEDs would have harmed Wojnarowski’s LEDs, and too small a current due to too many LEDs would be insufficient to power Wojnarowski’s LEDs. Pet. 26; Ex. 1002 ¶ 134; PO Resp. 48 (discussing, but not disputing, these assertions).13 Third, we agree that a POSITA would have recognized in view of Martin’s teachings and the knowledge of a skilled artisan that when configuring Wojnarowski’s device, the total forward voltage drop of the series-connected LEDs should approximately match the DC voltage output 13 Petitioner explains the relationship between voltage and current for the LEDs as follows: “the total voltage drop of the circuit would dictate the current drawn by the LED circuitry, which would have been known to be inversely proportional to the voltage.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 134). of Wojnarowski’s circuit. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 132–38; Ex. 1008, Abstract (LED voltage “must be matched to the input source voltage”), ¶ 60 (“For AC or any other regularly varying input voltage, there is an additional requirement to direct drive voltage matching”)). For example, Martin teaches that “[t]he number of LEDs in the monolithic array may be selected to achieve a particular voltage drop across each device.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 22. Martin further explains, “[t]he voltage across each of the individual LEDs in the array is the line voltage divided by the number of LEDs in series,” and “[t]he number of LEDs is chosen such that the maximum voltage across each individual LED during the peak in the alternating current cycle is low enough so as not to damage the LEDs.” Id. The forward voltage drop across Martin’s 38 LEDs is about 171 V, which matches Martin’s AC input voltage peak of about 169.71 V. See id. (“At 120 RMS volts, the peak voltage will be about 180V [correction: 169.71 V],” and if the LEDs “can tolerate a maximum forward voltage of 4.5V, at least 38 LEDs connected in series are required.” (38 LEDs x 4.5 V = 171 V)); PO Resp. 41–42 (“While Martin references ‘about 180V,’ both parties agree that the correct value of the peak voltage Vp is 169.71 V.” (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 127)). Although Martin’s LED forward voltage drop (171 V) differs slightly from the peak input voltage (169.71 V), Patent Owner conceded at the hearing that the claimed “matches” does not require an exact equivalence. Tr. 38:9–11 (“Patent Owner agrees . . . that matching has a meaning that goes beyond exact equivalence.”).14” slip op. at 22
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“35 U.S.C. § 311(b). PO Resp. 22–25. This statute provides that “[a] petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added). Patent Owner contends that Martin is not available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) because it is not a patent or printed publication and is only prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner argues that documents are “printed publications” as of the date they become available to the public, and Martin became public on its publication date of October 21, 2004, after the February 25, 2004 priority date of the ’979 patent. Id. at 23. Patent Owner raises a similar argument for the Soules-II reference in Ground 6. Id. at 25– 26. Petitioner responds that the AIA framework permits the use of § 102(e) prior art in IPR proceedings, unlike formerly available covered business method review (CBM) proceedings, which restricted challenges to § 102(a) prior art. Reply 29. We agree. The statute governing the formerlyavailable CBM proceeding explicitly limits challenges based on “prior art that is described by section 102(a).” AIA § 18(a)(1)(C). In contrast, § 311(b) more broadly permits challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” The broader language in § 311(b) implies that unlike CBMs, IPRs are not limited to challenges solely under § 102(a) prior art. The parties cite to no Federal Circuit decisions that squarely address this issue. However, the Federal Circuit has applied § 102(e) patent application publication prior art in appeals from IPR proceedings. See, e.g., Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, 767 Fed. App’x 918, 920–21, 926 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (nonprecedential) (determining that a § 102(e) patent application publication was available as prior art in an IPR). The Board has also long permitted challenges based on patent application publications under § 102(e). See, e.g., Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012-00027, Paper 14 at 27 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2013) (instituting trial over § 102(e) ground based on a patent application publication). We therefore find Patent Owner’s § 311(b) argument unpersuasive.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 10,652,979 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,652,979 - Trend Micro Inc. v. Cupp Computing AsSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 14, 2023 · IPR2019-00561 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Remand
On remand, claim 16 was held unpatentable as obvious over APA and Sikdar; claim 7 was not shown unpatentable over Sikdar and Wright.
RulingsRemand decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A. Level of Ordinary Skill Petitioner contended “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’272 patent (i.e., May 30, 2007) . . . would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a comparable field of study, plus at least two years of professional experience with computer security systems and networks, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Jakobsson Decl. ¶ 49). In our Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s description of the person of ordinary skill over an alternative formulation by Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Medvidovic. FWD 17. However, we decided that we would reach the same result even under Dr. Medvidovic’s alternative formulation. Id. The level of ordinary skill adopted by us has not been further disputed by the parties, nor is it discussed in the Federal Circuit’s Decision. We therefore apply the same formulation for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner asserts that in Petitioner’s analysis of claim 16, “Petitioner reads out any distinctions between ‘at least a subset’ and ‘a subset.’” PO Resp. 45. Petitioner responds that “[t]he Board should reject Patent Owner’s argument that ‘the subset’ must be a ‘proper subset,’ i.e., a set that is less than the full set of outgoing data.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner cites dictionary definitions and other additional authorities to support this conclusion. Pet. Reply 5–6 (citing, e.g., Exs. 1022, 1023, 1024). For example, A Dictionary of Computing defines “subset” as “[a] set T whose members are all members of S,” and contrasts this with a “proper subset.” Ex. 1023, 3. Petitioner further points out that the antecedent basis of “at least a subset” for “the subset” in claim 16 supports its construction. Pet. Reply 6. In our Final Written Decision, after considering Petitioner’s evidence and the language of the claim, we found that the references to “subset” in claim 16 should be construed broadly enough to read on providing any portion of the outgoing data, up to and including all the data, and not a proper subset. FWD 24–25. For the reasons summarized above and those given in our Final Written Decision, we find that the term “subset” in claim 16 does not limit the claim to a “proper subset,” i.e., the claimed subset may include all the members of the set.” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Applying the Federal Circuit’s “flexible” standard, we find that for the reasons given that Petitioner demonstrates a motivation to combine Sikdar and the APA, as proposed by Petitioner, with a reasonable expectation of success. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments and find that a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to add Sikdar’s NAT/PAT capability to the prior art network system of Figure 18, disclosing a software-based firewall. Pet. 55–58; Pet. Reply 23–25. As Petitioner points out, Sikdar’s RSP “does not include any NICs . . . , which are a separate hardware component.” Pet. Reply 24. We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s argument is not convincing. More importantly, however, Patent Owner’s argument fails because in Ground 3, Petitioner does not propose combining “any device containing two NICs with the APA.” Id. Petitioner proposes combining “the RSP’s NAT/PAT functionality with the APA.” Id. at 24–25 (citing Pet. 55–58) (emphasis added). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); see also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 34
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“non-obviousness, including long-felt need, failure of others, and skepticism by experts in the industry. PO Resp. 50–52. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Before reaching a decision on obviousness of claim 16, we must weigh these secondary considerations. In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1075–76 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.” WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine whether the patentee has met that burden, we consider the correspondence between the objective evidence and the claim scope. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). We concluded, in our Final Written Decision, that Patent Owner had failed to meet its burden. FWD 47–50. We agreed with Petitioner that Patent Owner had failed to establish the required nexus to its claims. Id. at 49. We agreed also that Patent Owner had not provided convincing evidence supporting the existence of such objective indicia. Id. We find that, for the reasons given in our Final Written Decision, which we adopt for this Final Written Decision on Remand, Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary factors is insubstantial and unconvincing, and we therefore give it minimal weight in considering the obviousness of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,365,272 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,365,272 - Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. v. Columbia Insurance CompanySome claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 15, 2023 · PGR2021-00109 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–12, 15–17, and 21–23 are unpatentable; the revised contingent motion to amend is granted for claim 32 and denied for claims 24–31, 33–35, 38–40, and 44–46.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“Accordingly, based on the foregoing and the complete record before” slip op. at 38
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“C. Claim Construction We apply the claim construction standard articulated in Phillips v.” slip op. at 23
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)IndefiniteMixed
“persuaded by Petitioner that the limitations “a channel-shaped portion configured to receive the structural component” and “a base configured to receive an end portion of the structural component thereon to support the structural component” would not have informed the skilled artisan, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the claimed invention. See Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“When the meaning of the claim would reasonably be understood by persons of ordinary skill when read in light of the specification, the claim is not subject to invalidity upon departure from the protocol of ‘antecedent basis.’”). Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 11,021,867 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,021,867
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.