• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00219 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 11–22 were not shown unpatentable under any § 103 ground because the prior art did not teach or suggest receiving the claimed resource allocation and multi-level TPC command on one physical channel.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, a petitioner should 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the application from which the ’153 patent issued claims priority to an application filed before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. not “place the burden on [the Board] to sift through information presented by the Petitioners, determine where each element [of the challenged claims] is found in [the cited references], and identify any differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of [the cited references.]” Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 at 25 (PTAB May 22, 2014).” slip op. at 5

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “The second and third asserted benefits—reduced complexity and reduced latency—rest on the declaration of Dr. Kotzin (Ex. 1003 ¶ 64) rather than on any disclosure of Andersson or Khan. We accord that testimony little weight on this point because it asserts the benefits in conclusory terms without explaining why they would result from inserting a scheduling grant into Andersson’s undefined “other bits,” as distinct from Khan’s separate-slot design.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that ordinarily skilled artisans “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. 14. Petitioner’s proposed definition, which Patent Owner does not dispute, appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’500 Patent. Therefore, we adopt it as the ordinary level of skill of an artisan in the field of the patented technology for our analysis below.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “Patent Owner offers a proposed construction for the recited “single physical channel” found in limitation 11.2 and “an accumulation of TPC commands” found in independent claims 12 and 18. PO Resp. 9–17. Petitioner likewise addresses the scope of an accumulation of TPC commands, but Petitioner does not contest directly Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “single physical channel.” Pet. Reply 2–7. We determine, however, that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  Patent outcomesUS 9,706,500 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,706,500
• Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 22, 2026 · IPR2025-00217 · APJ Frederick C Laney · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1–5, 10–15, and 20 not unpatentable under four §103 grounds because the petitioner did not establish the claimed enabled-accumulation indication or single-channel combination.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103, effective March 16, 2013. Because the application from which the ’153 patent issued claims priority to an application filed before this date, the pre-AIA version of § 103 applies. 2 US 6,334,047 B1, iss. Dec. 25, 2001 (Ex. 1009). 3 US 2001/0036238 A1, pub. Nov. 1, 2001 (Ex. 1010) 4 US 2004/0190485 A1, pub. Sept. 30, 2004 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 2004/0077370 A1, pub. Apr. 22, 2004 (Ex. 1008). 6 US 6,600,772 B1, iss. July 29, 2003 (Ex. 1004). 7 US 6,529,741 B1, iss. Mar. 4, 2003 (Ex. 1007). unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Moreover, a petitioner should not “place the burden on [the Board] to sift through information presented by the Petitioners, determine where each element [of the challenged claims] is found in [the cited references], and identify any differences between the claimed subject matter and the teachings of [the cited references].” Google Inc. v. EveryMD.com LLC, IPR2014-00347, Paper 9 at 25 (PTAB May 22, 2014).” slip op. at 5

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that ordinarily skilled artisans “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. 15. Petitioner’s proposed definition, which Patent Owner does not dispute, appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’153 patent. Therefore, we adopt it as the ordinary level of skill of an artisan in the field of the patented technology for our analysis below.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “apparent agreement between the parties: “TPC command accumulation” refers to a process that collects and uses TPC commands from a network device to cumulatively affect transmission power. And having studied the intrinsic record of the ’153 patent, we are in accord. But, we decline to further limit the construction of “TPC command accumulation” in the manner proposed by either party––i.e., (1) each TPC command adjustment must be summed to cumulatively affect transmission power (as proposed by Petitioner) or (2) a TPC command value must be added to an integrator. Although both parties are able to point to disclosures in the ’153 Patent where the TPC command accumulation of an exemplary embodiment is described as using an integrator and/or summing each TPC command adjustment to cumulatively affect a UE’s transmission power (PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–43, 7:15–29, 9:27–42; Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 35–42); Pet. Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:39–43, 7:2–6, 7:8–22, 9:28–40)), neither party has demonstrated persuasively that the intrinsic record of the ’153 Patent demonstrates a clear intent to limit “TPC command accumulation” to those particular embodiments.” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “A rationale supports obviousness only where the proffered benefit would flow from the specific modification proposed; a benefit that the prior art realizes in a different structural context does not, without more, establish that the same benefit would result from inserting one reference’s element into the other. On this record, the nexus between Khan’s benefits and Petitioner’s “other bits” modification is missing.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,952,153 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,952,153
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00818 · APJ Kara L Szpondowski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, and 4–23 were not shown unpatentable over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan because the combination did not teach comparing desired and interferer signal strengths.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Behbahani teaches “comparing the strength of the desired signal to the strength of the interfere signal,” as recited in limitation 1(a). See PO Resp. 68–69; Sur-reply 21–23. Although Petitioner argues that Behbahani “expressly teaches comparing the desired and interferer signal strengths,” Petitioner does not cite to sufficient evidence in support of this statement. Pet. 38. The basis of Petitioner’s argument is that Behbahani teaches the same process for determining signal strengths as shown in Figure 4 of the ’202 patent. Figure 4 of the ’202 patent is reproduced below: Figure 4 shows, among other things, signal strength indicator circuits 440 and 450 connected to input line 410 and output line 460, on either side of gain element 420 and filter 430. Ex. 1001, 6:53–57. The input signal on input line 410 is shown as desired signal 412 and interferers 464 and 466. Id. at 59–61. Figure 4 is further described as follows. The signal strength indicators 440 and 450 do not provide information as to the relative sizes of the desired and interfering signals. Rather, a cumulative signal level is provided at their outputs. For example, the first signal strength indicator 440 outputs a level corresponding to the sum of desired signal 412 and interfering signals 414 and 416, while the second signal strength indicator 450 provides a signal level corresponding to the sum of desired signal 462 and interfering signals 464 and 466. In this specific example, the gain of the gain and filter circuit combinations is shown as approximately one, while the interfering signals 414 and 416 signal levels are reduced. A comparison of the signal levels provided by the signal strength indicators 440 and 450 indicates that much of the combined received signal on line 410 has been filtered. Accordingly, it may be deduced that large interfering signals present at the input are being filtered by the filter 430. From this information, as will be shown in greater detail below, the bias, impedance, and gain of the gain stage 420 and filter 430 combination may be optimized to reduce power dissipation. Ex. 1001, 6:61–7:13 (emphasis added). In other words, Figure 4 shows a comparison of a sum of the desired and interferer signals output from the strength indicator circuits, not a comparison of the strength of the desired signal and the strength of the interferer signal, as required by the claim language. See Sur-reply 22–23. The ’202 patent describes Figure 4 as “an embodiment,” and claims are not limited to specific embodiments described in the specification. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner even admits that Figure 4 “compar[es] a cumulative signal strength at a first node to a cumulative signal strength at a second node.” Pet. 36 (emphasis added). In the Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “ignores the” slip op. at 33

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), a reply “may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” We agree with Petitioner, for the reasons stated in the Opposition, that the arguments in the Reply and Reply declaration testimony are responsive to arguments raised in the Patent Owner Response. See Opp Mot. 7–12 (explaining the positions taken in the Petition, Patent Owner’s arguments in Response, and the arguments presented in Reply); see Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 84 F.4th 990, 1008–1009 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Petitioner does not provide a new theory of unpatentability; rather, Petitioner responds and elaborates on the theory presented in the Petition to explain why Patent Owner’s arguments are incorrect. E.g., Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d 919, 925 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Parties are not barred from elaborating on their arguments on issues previously raised.”); Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1081–82 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reasoning that rebuttal evidence should be responsive such that it is offered “to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove the evidence of the adverse party”). “[T]he introduction of new evidence in the course of the trial is to be expected in [IPR] trial proceedings” and permissible “as long as the opposing party is given notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We also note that our Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (“CTPG”) states that In most cases, the Board is capable of identifying new issues or belatedly presented evidence when weighing the evidence at the close of trial, and disregarding any new issues or belatedly presented evidence that exceeds the proper scope of reply or sur-reply. As such, striking the entirety or a portion of a party's brief is an exceptional remedy that the Board expects will be granted rarely. CTPG at 80, 84 Fed. Reg. 64,280 (Nov. 21, 2019). We follow that guidance here. Further, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Abidi’s testimony as a co- author of Behbahani is “self-serving and unsupported.” Mot. 6–7. The fact that Dr. Abidi is a co-author of Behbahani, as well as Petitioner’s expert, is not, in and of itself, sufficient to discredit Dr. Abidi’s testimony. The CTPG provides that “[t]he Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony.” CTPG 35. We are capable of discerning from the testimony and the evidence presented whether Dr. Abidi’s testimony should be entitled to any weight, either as a whole or with regard to specific issues. We will weigh the testimony on an issue-by-issue basis as appropriate. Moreover, to the extent that Patent Owner has pointed out the inadequacies of Dr. Abidi’s testimony, we are also capable of noting those inadequacies and weighing that testimony accordingly. For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s motion to strike is denied.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We also disagree with Petitioner that “Dr. Abidi provided well- reasoned analysis that Behbahani teaches determining and comparing desired and interferer signal strengths.” Reply 27 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 179– 181). We have reviewed the Dr. Abidi’s testimony cited in the Petition and Reply for limitation 1(a) (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95, 96, 113–120, 179–181; Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 12–16), and we disagree that Dr. Abidi provided well-reasoned analysis that Behbahani teaches comparing desired signal strengths with interferer signal strengths. Rather, Dr. Abidi’s testimony focuses on determining or measuring desired and interferer signal strengths, generally simply repeats what is in the Petition, and only provides a conclusory assertion that Behbahani expressly teaches comparing the strengths of the desired and interferer signals without providing any explanation. See TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 942 F.3d 1352, 1358–59 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Conclusory expert testimony does not qualify as substantial evidence.”). Accordingly, Dr. Abidi’s supporting testimony is also deficient. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). As Patent Owner points out, the only comparison mentioned by Petitioner in Behbahani is to derive the strength of the interferer signal. Sur-reply 22 (citing Pet. 38–39); Ex. 1004, 1207 (“[B]y comparing the signal level at the input and the output of the digital filter (DI and DO), the relative strength of the out-of-channel signal that passes through the analog filter is calculated”). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons we determine that Petitioner has not shown that Behbahani teaches limitation 1(a).” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 11. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 10,524,202 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,524,202
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel S.P.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2021-00580 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1–10 not shown unpatentable under the Sachs anticipation and obviousness grounds because Sachs did not disclose the required timer stopping, and the new theories were not considered.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Whether Mr. Bates is a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition because “there does not appear to be a dispute that needs to be resolved.” FWD 8. Here, where Mr. Bates’ qualifications are challenged, we have reviewed the complete record including the parties’ arguments on remand and we find that Mr. Bates does not meet the requirements for a person of ordinary skill in the art according to Petitioner’s definition for level of ordinary skill in the art, which we adopted (see FWD 8). Notably, the panel adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the Institution Decision (Paper 16, 8), and neither party challenged that determination during the trial, although Patent Owner did offer its own definition (PO Resp. 9). Mr. Bates has one degree: “a bachelor’s degree in Business Management.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 7. A degree in Business Management is not “a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline.” Pet. 35 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we disregard the testimony of Mr. Bates in rendering our findings and conclusions in this Decision. We note that, even if we did consider Mr. Bates’s testimony, the findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “cover for his lack of education.” Pet. Remand Br. 4. Patent Owner disagrees and argues, inter alia, that “Mr. Bates was a pioneer in the cellular telecommunications field with more than five decades of practical and teaching experience.” PO Remand Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 8–23) (emphasis omitted); see id. at 3–4, 6. Whether Mr. Bates is a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the Final Written Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s definition because “there does not appear to be a dispute that needs to be resolved.” FWD 8. Here, where Mr. Bates’ qualifications are challenged, we have reviewed the complete record including the parties’ arguments on remand and we find that Mr. Bates does not meet the requirements for a person of ordinary skill in the art according to Petitioner’s definition for level of ordinary skill in the art, which we adopted (see FWD 8). Notably, the panel adopted Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the Institution Decision (Paper 16, 8), and neither party challenged that determination during the trial, although Patent Owner did offer its own definition (PO Resp. 9). Mr. Bates has one degree: “a bachelor’s degree in Business Management.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 7. A degree in Business Management is not “a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline.” Pet. 35 (emphasis added). Accordingly, we disregard the testimony of Mr. Bates in rendering our findings and conclusions in this Decision. We note that, even if we did consider Mr. Bates’s testimony, the findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change.” slip op. at 12

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner

    “C. Claim Construction The Federal Circuit determined that “the plain and unambiguous language of claim 1 requires that a method, to come within the claim, must perform both limitations 1[c] and 1[d] where their preconditions apply.” Sierra Wireless, 130 F.4th at 1022. We interpret the claims and analyze Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments under the Federal Circuit’s determination.” slip op. at 13

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner was on notice, when Patent Owner’s Response was filed at the latest, that claim 1 could be construed as unconditionally requiring both limitations 1[c] and 1[d]. Indeed, Petitioner contended that it had shown both limitations “in single references.” Pet. Reply 5. Petitioner now seeks to shift its unpatentability contentions for limitation 1[c] from Figure 5 of Sachs to Figures 6 and 7. Petitioner’s new reliance on Figures 6 and 7 of Sachs is “a meaningfully distinct contention” from its position in both the Petition and the Reply. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We therefore find that Petitioner impermissibly presents new theories of unpatentability on remand. 3. Independent Claim 1 We decline to address Petitioner’s new theories of unpatentability proposed on remand concerning Sachs’s Figure 7. See Pet. Remand Br. 15– 20. Although Petitioner cites pages 59–61 of the Petition as discussing Figure 7 of Sachs (see Pet. Remand Br. 15), the cited discussion concerns dependent claims 5 and 10, not independent claims 1 and 8.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,869,396 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,869,396
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2021-01150 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held that Petitioner had not shown claims 1–18 unpatentable under § 103 over Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen because the combination did not teach or motivate transmission responsive to correlation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “the Final Written Decision for “not clearly explaining its holding or rationale regarding motivation to combine and whether the proposed combination teaches the final limitation of claim 1: transmitting an indication of the first host responsive to the correlating.” Palo Alto Networks, 122 F.4th at 1384. In the opinion, the Federal Circuit explained that the Final Written Decision “never made a clear finding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Paxton by adding Sutton’s step of transmitting a notification of malicious activity after Paxton’s correlation step,” as proposed by Petitioner. Id. at 1385. The Federal Circuit stated that the Board “failed to explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Paxton to provide the recited notification as taught by Sutton in response to the correlation disclosed in Paxton.” Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[b]y reading Paxton and Sutton in isolation, the Board erred,” and that we vacate and remand for the Board to clarify and explain its holding on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to transmit the identity of the first host (e.g., to an administrator) as taught by Sutton, responsive to the correlating disclosed by Paxton to improve network security.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the alleged invention of the ’903 patent “had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 18–20). Petitioner further notes that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill is similar, with Patent Owner contending that the ordinary skilled artisan “would be someone with a bachelor’s degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or related field, and either (1) two or more years of industry experience and/or (2) an advanced degree in computer science or related field.” PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 2019 ¶¶ 27– 31). Similar to Petitioner, Patent Owner also states that a person of ordinary skill in the art “may have additional industry experience in lieu of a formal degree.” Id. at 13.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “After review of the current record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “responsive to the correlation, we are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references in the manner advocated by Petitioner. Petitioner contends that this combination would only involve “[t]he application of known techniques (e.g., Sutton’s implementation of rules and data to define security policies, disallowed websites, etc.) to improve similar devices (e.g., servers, gateways, firewalls, etc. in Sutton’s and Paxton’s systems) to provide predictable results in the same way (e.g., to provide packet-filtering functions preventing communications with potentially malicious hosts).” Id. at 22–23.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,530,903 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,530,903
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Fendgo, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00114 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because DiPerna964 and Strack do not teach or suggest the panic button readying itself to perform the claimed functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “After review of the ’404 patent’s description, we find no disclosure that pressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) as recited in limitation 1[d]. The closest descriptions we find to limitation 1[d] are that the safety switch readies the panic button to contact 911 (Ex. 1001, 6:59–62), that the panic button may be activated by pressing the panic button with another button (id., 3:59–67, and that the panic button may start a speech recognition process that can trigger the device (id., 7:61–62). Consequently, claim 1 is itself the best source for determining what the claim language means. We determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the “ready itself” feature of claim 1 is that the panic button “prepares itself to be triggered to perform the panic button functions (1) and (2).” Since the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear to discern the meaning of the “ready itself” limitation, we do not resort to extrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (explaining that extrinsic evidence is less significant than intrinsic evidence); Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, 8 F.4th 1285, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Court of Appeals gives primacy to intrinsic evidence and resorts to extrinsic evidence only if consistent with intrinsic evidence); Sequoia Tech., LLC v. Dell, Inc., 66 F.4th 1317, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (Court of Appeals stating that its “decision rests solely on the intrinsic evidence”).” slip op. at 9

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportDecided for petitioner

    “Thus, the ’353 application describes that moving the safety switch into position readies the panic button to contact 911, which is not the same as the panic button being activated to ready itself to perform functions (1) and (2) required by claim 1 of the ’404 patent. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosures elsewhere in the ’353 application is unavailing. PO Resp. 5–8 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–21, 23, 25); PO Sur-Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1006, 15, 17, 19–20, 24–25)). For example, while the ’353 application does mention voice activation with a codeword and activation by depressing of the panic button together with another button (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 17, 21, 24–25), it does not mention that depressing the panic button together with another button causes the panic button to ready itself to perform recited functions (1) and (2). The application explains that “[t]he [panic] button can send a signal to a controller inside the device to activate [the code word activation] process” and “[t]he [panic] button can start the speech recognition process in one embodiment, to trigger the device.” Ex. 1006, 25. But that describes readying the device for activation by the code word, not readying the button to perform the recited functions. The ’353 application also mentions the word “ready” in relation to using a self-defense mechanism such as pepper spray, which does not appear to be related the readying of the panic button recited in claim 1. Ex. 1006, 15, 19–20. Petitioner has thus met its burden to demonstrate that claims 1–8 of the ’404 patent lack written description support for a panic button adapted to “ready itself” to perform the recited functions because the limitation is not present in the ’353 application to which the ’404 patent claims priority.3 Pet. 8–10. The burden of production thus shifted to Patent Owner to demonstrate that the ’353 application has written description support for limitation 1[d], which it has not done on this record. PO Resp. 5–8; PO Sur-Reply 2–3.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “DiPerna964 discloses a separate “safety” switch that readies the panic button to contact 911 upon being pressed (Ex. 1028 ¶ 41), but there is no mention of pressing the panic button together with another button to cause the panic button to “ready itself” to perform panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit, as limitations 1[d] and 1[e] require. DiPerna964 mentions pressing two buttons together to activate the panic button (see, e.g., Ex. 1028 ¶¶ 17, 23–25, 27), but not to “ready itself” to perform recited functions (1) and (2). Petitioner relies on Strack’s triggering the collection of audio, video, and location data for transmission to a remote location as equivalent to a panic button readying itself to, when activated, perform the panic button functions (1) dialing a public or private network for an emergency purpose and (2) activating the transmitting unit. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 76–88). We do not agree with Petitioner’s contention because Petitioner fails to explain how Strack’s button press that collects and then transmits audio, video, and location data would ready the panic button to perform recited functions (1) and (2). It appears that Strack’s button press readies the device, not the button, to perform the functions. As neither DiPerna964 nor Strack nor their combination teach or suggest limitations 1[d] and 1[e], we determine it is unnecessary to proceed further with the obviousness analysis. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed.Cir.2006) (stating that we consider motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success only “if all the elements of an invention are found in a combination of prior art references”)).” slip op. at 21

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the educational level, technology, problems and solutions identified in the ’404 patent and prior art references asserted by Petitioner. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level in this Decision.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 11,265,404 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,265,404
• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson / Ericsson Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 26, 2023 · IPR2022-00730 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 22, 23, 30, 32, and 33 were not shown unpatentable because Pakzad did not disclose the claimed combined macro and femto timing information, and the obviousness grounds did not address that limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “information from all three types of sources together or at the same time. Patent Owner argues that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would understand that this passage in Pakzad ‘any one of several sources’ confirms that Pakzad only uses a single signal source at a time.” PO Resp. 34 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 69). Dr. Chrissan testifies that he understands this disclosure to mean that “Pakzad teaches a single signal source at a time, not more than one.” Ex. 2002 ¶ 70 (emphasis added). We find Patent Owner’s interpretation, supported by Dr. Chrissan’s testimony, to be a reasonable reading of Pakzad’s disclosure. Dr. Chrissan further testifies that “Pakzad’s invention is about using both a course [sic] routing graph and fine routing graph to make computation of a motion model (e.g., a particle filter) more efficient,” and “Pakzad was not directed to leveraging a heterogenous network by incorporating both macro and femto cells concurrently.” Id. ¶ 68. We agree with Dr. Chrissan’s explanation for the lack of clear disclosure in Pakzad about which measurements Pakzad uses with its particle filter.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been someone with at least (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering/science, or a related scientific field, and (2) either (a) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering/science, or a related filed, or (b) two or more years of work or research experience in wireless networking and/or computing.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 23). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art, but adds that the person of ordinary skill in the art “may alternatively have additional years of practical and relevant work or research experience as substitution for less or different technical education, and vice versa.” See PO Resp. 17. We determine that the level of ordinary skill proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the ’819 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level in deciding the patentability of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “claim 30 should be construed “to refer to the previously recited ‘femto base station timing information,’ ‘macro base station timing information,’ and ‘femto base station position information.’” PO Resp. 18. Patent Owner argues that its proposed construction is “based on at least three aspects of the intrinsic record: (1) the claim language itself; (2) guidance from the specification defining the disputed term; and (3) illustrative embodiments confirming the meaning of the disputed term.” Id. (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 47). Specifically, Patent Owner contends that “the specification describes two embodiments that further confirm to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] that ‘the base station information’ consists of the [three types of information previously] recited.” Id. at 19–23 (citing Ex. 1001, 19:29–33, 20:50–54, Figs. 8, 9; Ex. 2002 ¶¶ 47–55).” slip op. at 10

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “More importantly, anticipation requires that the four corners of a single, prior art document describe every element of the claimed invention, and we are not persuaded that Pakzad describes the combinational use of the two different types of timing information as claimed. See Xerox Corp. v. 3Com Corp., 458 F.3d 1310, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). The Federal Circuit has made it clear that “it is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1371 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). In Net MoneyIN, although a prior art reference described two protocols, which when taken together, disclosed “all five links arranged or combined in the same way as claimed,” the Federal Circuit determined that the reference did not anticipate the claim. See id. Rather, the Federal” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,958,819 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Enfish · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,958,819
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 16, 2023 · IPR2021-01150 · APJ Stacey G White · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen because the combination did not establish transmission responsive to the packet correlation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “level of skill in the art. Dec. 21. Patent Owner offers a different formulation in the Response, but neither party provides substantive argument as to why its proposed level of skill is correct. See Pet. 13; PO Resp. 12–13. We do not find a material difference between the parties’ proposals. Based on this record, we apply the level of skill laid out in our Institution Decision because it is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we find for the purpose of this Decision and based on the record before us, that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and approximately 2–3 years of experience in the design or development of telecommunication systems, or the equivalent. We note, however, that our determinations on patentability would not change if we accepted Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “After review of the current record, we conclude that no express claim construction is necessary for the purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that this combination is insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. PO Resp. 28–44. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner does not explain why any such transmitting would be responsive to the correlation as required by the claims. Id. at 30. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that the proposed combination “would simply result in notifying administrators of potentially infected devices in reaction to finding that ‘a packet [has been] detected as communicated to/from a darknet address (postboundary).’” Id. (quoting Pet. 22). According to Patent Owner, this is not enough because “[t]he detection of darknet activity involves no correlation whatsoever . . . it simply involves a comparison of the original addresses information of a packet to a list of darknet addresses.” Id. Patent Owner further argues that the recited responsiveness also is not taught by Paxton, which identifies a source of packet transmission without teaching any actions that occur responsive to that identification. Id. at 31. This assertion is supported by Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich, who opines that “Paxton does not disclose or suggest doing anything with the packet matching information unless and until malicious activity is sensed. Although I note that Petitioner argues that Paxton ‘generat[es] a match log including the identity of the packet source address,’ Paxton does not disclose doing anything responsive to, or in reaction to, generating this match log.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 83 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner’s “assertion that Paxton does not disclose ‘doing anything responsive to correlating packets,’ is facetious: there would be no purpose in doing that determining at all if it was not recorded or otherwise made known.” Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that “Paxton expressly teaches creating a log and notifying a network administrator of the identified host.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 30, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 119; Pet., 14–15, 40; Dec. 38–39). We, however, are not persuaded that this argument was articulated sufficiently in the Petition. Petitioner cites pages 14–15 of the Petition. That portion of the Petition states “[m]atching packets and identifying the true source of packet transmissions is useful for network security, providing a way to trace malicious activity sensed at the edge of a network and identify nodes infected with malicious content.” Pet. 14–15. It is true that Paxton states that the ability to identify the true source of a packet transmission “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content, which can allow the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. We find no argument in the Petition that asserts “allow[ing] the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content” means that a transmission is made (or any other action is taken) responsive to the correlation. Sutton also fails to fill in this gap. Petitioner argues that “Sutton discloses transmitting the indication of the first host (e.g., notifying an administrator) responsive to identifying a device associated with malicious activity.” Pet. 41. Sutton “monitors communications to identify access attempts to/from darknet addresses” and if such an attempt is found “a notification or other corrective action can be provided identifying such potentially malicious activity.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, code (57)). Sutton further states that if devices associated with malicious activity “reside within the enterprise network, a notification 355 can be provided to the enterprise network (e.g., a network administrator) indicating that such devices are potentially infected with malicious software code.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, 10:60–11:3). Sutton identifies malicious nodes by determining whether a communication is destined or originating from an address in the darknet address database. Ex. 1007, 6:15–22. Thus, if a darknet address is found then Sutton will transmit a message indicating the malicious presence. This leaves us with a correlation from Paxton with no specific actions taken postcorrelation, and a transmission from Sutton unrelated to any correlation, but without the necessary bridge showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the transmission would be responsive to the correlation. As such, Petitioner has not provided us with argument and evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen.” slip op. at 25

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Patent Owner argues that this combination is insufficient to teach the disputed limitation. PO Resp. 28–44. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner does not explain why any such transmitting would be responsive to the correlation as required by the claims. Id. at 30. In particular, Patent Owner asserts that the proposed combination “would simply result in notifying administrators of potentially infected devices in reaction to finding that ‘a packet [has been] detected as communicated to/from a darknet address (postboundary).’” Id. (quoting Pet. 22). According to Patent Owner, this is not enough because “[t]he detection of darknet activity involves no correlation whatsoever . . . it simply involves a comparison of the original addresses information of a packet to a list of darknet addresses.” Id. Patent Owner further argues that the recited responsiveness also is not taught by Paxton, which identifies a source of packet transmission without teaching any actions that occur responsive to that identification. Id. at 31. This assertion is supported by Patent Owner’s Declarant, Dr. Goodrich, who opines that “Paxton does not disclose or suggest doing anything with the packet matching information unless and until malicious activity is sensed. Although I note that Petitioner argues that Paxton ‘generat[es] a match log including the identity of the packet source address,’ Paxton does not disclose doing anything responsive to, or in reaction to, generating this match log.” Ex. 2019 ¶ 83 (citing Pet. 39; Ex. 1004 ¶ 22). Petitioner responds by arguing that Patent Owner’s “assertion that Paxton does not disclose ‘doing anything responsive to correlating packets,’ is facetious: there would be no purpose in doing that determining at all if it was not recorded or otherwise made known.” Reply 5. Petitioner further contends that “Paxton expressly teaches creating a log and notifying a network administrator of the identified host.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 30, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 63, 119; Pet., 14–15, 40; Dec. 38–39). We, however, are not persuaded that this argument was articulated sufficiently in the Petition. Petitioner cites pages 14–15 of the Petition. That portion of the Petition states “[m]atching packets and identifying the true source of packet transmissions is useful for network security, providing a way to trace malicious activity sensed at the edge of a network and identify nodes infected with malicious content.” Pet. 14–15. It is true that Paxton states that the ability to identify the true source of a packet transmission “can provide a way to quickly identify nodes that are infected with malicious content, which can allow the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 30. We find no argument in the Petition that asserts “allow[ing] the network administrator to better identify the scope of malicious content” means that a transmission is made (or any other action is taken) responsive to the correlation. Sutton also fails to fill in this gap. Petitioner argues that “Sutton discloses transmitting the indication of the first host (e.g., notifying an administrator) responsive to identifying a device associated with malicious activity.” Pet. 41. Sutton “monitors communications to identify access attempts to/from darknet addresses” and if such an attempt is found “a notification or other corrective action can be provided identifying such potentially malicious activity.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, code (57)). Sutton further states that if devices associated with malicious activity “reside within the enterprise network, a notification 355 can be provided to the enterprise network (e.g., a network administrator) indicating that such devices are potentially infected with malicious software code.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1007, 10:60–11:3). Sutton identifies malicious nodes by determining whether a communication is destined or originating from an address in the darknet address database. Ex. 1007, 6:15–22. Thus, if a darknet address is found then Sutton will transmit a message indicating the malicious presence. This leaves us with a correlation from Paxton with no specific actions taken postcorrelation, and a transmission from Sutton unrelated to any correlation, but without the necessary bridge showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that the transmission would be responsive to the correlation. As such, Petitioner has not provided us with argument and evidence sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over the teachings of Paxton, Sutton, and Ivershen.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,530,903 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,530,903
• Honeywell International, Inc. / TCT Mobile (US) Inc. et al. v. 3g Licensing S.A.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 14, 2022 · IPR2021-00908 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–13, and 15–23 unpatentable as obvious over Philips46 alone or Philips46 and Nokia.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached

    “A claim “shall be construed using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2020). Neither party proposes a construction of any claim terms. Pet. 29; PO Resp. 15. We determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any claim terms for purposes of this Decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art as including a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline with approximately two years of signal processing experience, which is supported by the declaration of Dr. Clark and the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–72). We also agreed with Patent Owner that a combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field may also suffice. Id. In its Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner states that it does not object to the level of ordinary skill we adopted in the Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. For purposes of this Final Written Decision, we adhere to the level of ordinary skill adopted in our Institution Decision, which is consistent with the disclosures of the ’718 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundReasonable expectation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “First, we find that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to swap the last two bits in the last row of the Philips46 table in order to provide more protection to the most significant bit (MSB). Even if we were to agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill would have understood that swapping the last two bits would have provided more protection to the MSB, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill would have believed that such a change would be desirable. Patent Owner introduces evidence from Dr. Smith and the ’781 patent that there was “a tradeoff between BER and RMS error” and that “efforts to minimize RMS error and to minimize BER produce conflicting and incompatible results.” Ex. 1001, 11:38–44; Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 13, 43. These conflicting results are supported by the ’718 patent specification’s comparison of various codes (represented by C1, C2, embodiment 2, and embodiment 3), which found that the embodiment that had the best BER performance (C1) had the worst RMS error performance, and the embodiment with the best RMS error performance (embodiment 3) had the worst BER performance. Ex. 1001, 11:48–51, 11:58–61. We also find credible Dr. Smith’s testimony that “[a]dding all protection to just the MSB removes protection for all other bits,” which would be expected to reduce BER performance. Ex. 2006 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 7,319,718 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,319,718
• Cisco Systems, Inc. / Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al. v. K.Mizra LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2022 · IPR2022-00084 · APJ Minn Chung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gleichauf, Ovadia, and Lewis because the petitioner did not sufficiently explain why a skilled artisan would have combined Gleichauf and Lewis as …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “Dr. Reddy additionally testifies that “URL redirection is a well-known concept in HTTP traffic” (Ex. 1003 ¶ 24) and that “[a person of ordinary skill in the art] would have been familiar with URL redirection, which was a common technique used to forcibly provide an alternative response to a client’s request for a web page” (id. at ¶ 134). During the oral hearing, Petitioner also stated, citing the Reddy Declaration, that “it was well known to redirect traffic to a separate server.” Tr. 17:8–12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 134). This, however, does not provide a sufficient explanation why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis. This rationale and all of the other reasons for the proposed combination proffered by Petitioner establish, at most, that Gleichauf and Lewis could have been combined to meet limitations [1.8] and [1.9], rather than a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination. This is insufficient. See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). We find, therefore, that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient reasoning to support obviousness of claim 1 based on the proposed combination.7 See Kinetic Concepts, 688 F.3d at 1366–67 (holding that “some kind of motivation must be shown from some source, so that the [trier of fact] can understand why a person of ordinary skill would have thought of either combining two or more references or modifying one to achieve the patented [invention]”)); InTouch Techs., 751 F.3d at 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[The expert witness’s] testimony was nothing more than impermissible hindsight; she opined that all of the elements of the claims disparately existed in the prior art, but failed to provide the glue to combine these references.”).” slip op. at 36

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. Dr. Medvidovic, Patent Owner’s declarant, states that “[f]or the purposes of the subject IPR proceedings,” he “employ[s]” the level of ordinary skill in the art articulated by Dr. Reddy. Ex. 2009 ¶ 26. Based on the complete record, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention because Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther

    “The parties dispute construction of “trusted platform module” (Pet. 13–16; PO Resp. 5–6) but do not identify any issue that would turn on the construction of this term. See generally Pet.; PO Resp. Based on the complete record, for purposes of this Decision, we determine no claim terms require express construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and “only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “Therefore, we find that Gleichauf alone provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis identified by Petitioner. As discussed above, in the proposed combination of Gleichauf and Lewis, Gleichauf would be modified such that HTTP traffic from a quarantined device would not be redirected to a remediation server but instead would be redirected to a quarantine server, which serves an informational webpage to the user of the device, as taught by Lewis. Pet. 48–49; Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1005, 4:56–63, 21:1–12; Ex. 1007, 4:24– 31, 13:7–15; Pet. 48). Thus, Petitioner’s proposed combination contemplates (1) modifying Gleichauf’s network by adding a separate quarantine server, (2) modifying Gleichauf’s policy server to not redirect HTTP traffic from a quarantined device to a remediation server and to instead redirect the HTTP traffic to the quarantine server, and (3) providing a quarantine notice webpage to the user from the quarantine server, including a link to the remediation server, which the user can click on to access the remediation server. In addition, Gleichauf’s policy server would also need to be modified to not provide the notification messages to the user for HTTP traffic to avoid having both the policy server and the quarantine server provide the same or similar information displays to the user. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Reddy explains adequately why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Lewis to introduce such significant changes to the architecture or design of Gleichauf’s network when Gleichauf alone already provides all of the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner. See Pet. 26–29; Pet. Reply 14–16; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71. Thus, based on the complete record, we find that the alleged benefits or advantages of the proposed combination identified by Petitioner do not provide sufficient basis for establishing why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Gleichauf and Lewis in the manner proposed by Petitioner. See In re Anova Hearing Labs, Inc., 809 F. App’x 840, 843 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding that the Board’s general statements that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art references to address the problem of occlusion effect in hearing aids was insufficient when the Board does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Brown, which already includes vents, to address occlusion effect”) (non-precedential); cf. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Because each device independently operates effectively, a person having ordinary skill in the art, who was merely seeking to create a better device to drain fluids from a wound, would have no reason to combine the features of both devices into a single device.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,234,705 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,234,705

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.