• Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10

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

    “In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted

    “Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,771,849
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. The Johns Hopkins UniversityAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00649 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–28 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–12, 14–17, and 19–28 are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record; claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 are obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the phrase “in response to” in claim 1 requires a causal relationship wherein the patient must be tested for MSI-H and, if he or she is determined to be MSI-H or dMMR, then the patient is treated with 10 mg/kg of pembrolizumab every 14 days. In claim 1, a biological sample from the patient must be tested to determine if the cancer is MSI-H and, if so, the patient is treated with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab. For this reason, if the prior art teaches the limitations of 1) testing a biological sample obtained from a patient having cancer to determine that the patient’s cancer is microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient, and 2) treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab if the patient’s cancer is determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, the art anticipates claim 1. We are not persuaded that claim 1 requires or excludes anything else because nothing else is recited in the claim.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “In the Decision to institute trial, we adopted Petitioner’s uncontested proposal defining that the level of skill in the art, presented above. Inst. Dec. 7. Neither party directs us to evidence of the level of skill in the art beyond what we considered for institution of trial. Having considered Patent Owner’s positions and evidence of record, however, we determine that the level of skill also includes knowledge of and experience with treating cancer patients with immunotherapy compounds, identifying the conditions these patients may have, and understanding the literature regarding clinical trials for such cancers and the associated conditions and immunotherapy.” slip op. at 15

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “holding is limited to anticipation of a claimed genus through disclosure of individual species, whereas the facts of this case involve the disclosure of a genus. PO Resp. 14. Because the facts before us, including the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, indicate that one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately understood that the third arm of the study described in the MSR includes patients with cancers recited in claim 1, including endometrial, gastric, and small-bowel cancers, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the MSR discloses species that fall within the scope of claim 1. Ex. 2090 ¶ 79; Ex. 1243, 115:5–116:22; Ex. 1085, 673–75; Ex. 1086, 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25, 63; Ex. 1005, 4. We are not persuaded that where species falling within the scope of claim 1 were previously known and disclosed in MSR, that claim 1 is patentable over the MSR. See Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’” the claimed arrangement or combination.” (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the MSR teaches “testing or having tested a biological sample obtained from a patient” having endometrial, small bowel, or gastric cancer and, thus teaches the corresponding limitation of claim 1.6” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “Regarding the dependent claims that Petitioner challenges only on obviousness grounds (claims 3, 8, 13, 18), Patent Owner must show a nexus between the claimed methods and the evidence of non-obviousness. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“to be accorded substantial weight in the obviousness analysis, the evidence of secondary considerations must have a ‘nexus’ to the claims, i.e., there must be ‘a legally and factually sufficient connection’ between the evidence and the patented invention. . . . Ultimately, ‘[t]he patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists.’” (quoting Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988), WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner does not direct us to evidence of a nexus to limitations recited in the dependent claims, for example to claims 3 and 13, which recite testing a biological sample that is a bodily fluid, claims 8 and 18, which recite testing that comprises assessing one or more markers selected from the group consisting of BAT-25, BAT-26, MONO-27, NR-21 and NR-24. Even if there is a nexus to the Patent Owner’s evidence of secondary considerations, the evidence addresses the methods of independent claims 1 and 11, not the limitations of the claims Petitioner challenges as being obvious. PO Resp. 55–83. Patent Owner directs us only to evidence regarding treating patients determined to have certain MSI-H cancers with pembrolizumab, which we determine to be anticipated by the MSR. Id. at 58. When evidence of a “secondary consideration is exclusively related to a single feature that is in the prior art,” our reviewing court has held the evidence is of no relevance to the obviousness inquiry. See Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1363–65 (Fed. Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 499 (2023) (distinguishing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); see also Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023, 1034 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]f the feature that creates the commercial success was known in the prior art, the success is not pertinent.”). In Yita, the prior art taught close-conformance of a floor tray with the walls of a vehicle foot well, which one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to use in combination with other prior-art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Yita, 69 F.4th at 1359–61. The court held that because the asserted evidence of secondary consideration related exclusively to close-conformity, the evidence was not persuasive of non-obviousness, even though the claimed floor tray was coextensive with the product that produced the evidence. See id. at 1364–65 (“The coextensiveness inquiry bears only on the presumption of nexus; it does not decide the overall nexus question.”). Because Patent Owner directs us only to evidence that the methods recited in claims 1 and 11 produced evidence of secondary considerations, we are not persuaded that this evidence is persuasive of the non-obviousness of the specific methods recited in the dependent claims. For example, Patent Owner fails to direct us to evidence that a method of treating MSI-H colorectal cancer in a patient “wherein the biological sample is a body fluid from the patient,” as recited in claim 3, or “wherein the at least one marker comprises BAT-25, BAT-26, MONO-27, NR-21 or NR-24,” as recited in claim 8, demonstrated unexpected results or commercial success. Accordingly, having considered the evidence of record as a whole, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the methods of claims 3, 8, 13, and 18 would have been obvious. We are not persuaded to the contrary by Patent Owner’s arguments or evidence of second secondary considerations.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 11,629,187 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,629,187
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. The Johns Hopkins UniversityAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2025 · IPR2024-00647 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 are unpatentable: claims 1–2, 4–8, 11–12, 14–18, and 21–36 as anticipated, and claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 as obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the phrase “in response to” in claim 1 requires a causal relationship wherein the patient must be tested for MSI-H and, if he or she is determined to be MSI-H or dMMR, then the patient is treated with 10 mg/kg of pembrolizumab every 14 days. In claim 1, a biological sample from the patient must be tested to determine if the cancer is MSI-H and, if so, the patient is treated with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab. For this reason, if the prior art teaches the limitations of 1) testing a biological sample obtained from a patient having colorectal cancer to determine that the patient’s colorectal cancer is microsatellite instability high or mismatch repair deficient, and 2) treating the patient with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab if the patient’s colorectal cancer is determined to be microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient, the art anticipates claim 1. We are not persuaded that claim 1 requires or excludes anything else because nothing else is recited in the claim.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The ’287 patent claims a method of treating a human patient with colorectal cancer having certain characteristics using pembrolizumab and the main prior art reference cited by Petitioner discloses testing pembrolizumab to treat human patients. See Ex. 1001, 24:42–52; Ex. 1005. Accordingly, the relevant field of Patent Owner’s claims is treating human patients, as well as testing existing compounds. In the Decision to institute trial, we adopted Petitioner’s uncontested proposal defining that the level of skill in the art, presented above. Dec. 7– 8. Neither party directs us to evidence of the level of skill in the art beyond what we considered for institution of trial. Having considered Patent Owner’s positions and evidence of record, however, we determine that the level of skill also includes knowledge of and experience with treating cancer patients with immunotherapy compounds, identifying the conditions these patients may have, and understanding the literature regarding clinical trials for such cancers and the associated conditions and immunotherapy.” slip op. at 14

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “In an anticipation analysis, the dispositive question is whether a skilled artisan would ‘reasonably understand or infer’ from a prior art reference that every claim limitation is disclosed in that single reference.” Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Itron Networked Sols., Inc., 949 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Extrinsic evidence, such as declarations and depositions may be considered when it is used to explain, but not expand, the meaning of a reference. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 390 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding that the depositions and declarations of skilled workers were properly used to show what those skilled in the art would have known about the prior art). We credit Dr. Neugut’s and Dr. Oberstein’s testimony about what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood after reviewing the MSR. slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,649,287 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,649,287
• Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v. The Johns Hopkins UniversityAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00650 · APJ Deborah Katz · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–38 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4–7, 11–17, 19–22, and 26–38 are anticipated by the MSR; the remaining claims are obvious over the MSR and cited references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner and Patent Owner characterize one of ordinary skill in the art differently. To Petitioner, the ordinarily skilled artisan would be a medical doctor, or a professional in a related field, with experience treating cancer or access to those with experience in clinical studies of therapeutics and to a pathologist with this experience. (See Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 19).) To Patent Owner, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a medical or graduate-level degree, or equivalent work experience, in the fields of immunology, genetics, or a related field and would have experience (i) conducting immunology research relating to oncology, (ii) conducting genetics research relating to oncology, or (iii) developing and conducting clinical trials on novel cancer therapies in those fields. (See PO Resp. 5–6 (citing Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 31–32, 91–99).) Petitioner emphasizes medical and treatment aspects in its characterization of an ordinarily skilled artisan, whereas Patent Owner emphasizes research aspects. The ’491 patent claims a method of treating a human patient with cancer having certain characteristics using pembrolizumab and the main prior art reference cited by Petitioner discloses testing pembrolizumab to treat human patients. (See Ex. 1001, 25:36–52, 26:24–41, Ex. 1005; see Decision 8–9.) Accordingly, the relevant field of Patent Owner’s claims is treating human patients, as well as testing existing compounds. In light of the extent of the relevant field, we determine that the level of skill in the art relevant to the claims of the ’491 patent is not limited to knowledge of and experience with conducting research relating to oncology or developing and conducting clinical trials, but includes knowledge of and experience with treating cancer patients with immunotherapy compounds, identifying the conditions these patients may have, and understanding the literature regarding clinical trials for such colorectal cancers and the associated conditions and immunotherapy. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Lonberg, Patent Owner’s witness, does not dispute any of Dr. Neugut’s or Dr. Oberstein’s testimony, but asserts only that Dr. Neugut’s testimony relies only on what was generally done, not on what is expressly disclosed in the MSR. (See Ex. 2072 ¶¶ 105–107.) On cross-examination, Dr. Lonberg agreed with Dr. Oberstein that patients who had received prior cancer therapy were not excluded from the study described in the MSR. (See Ex. 1245, 57:5–58:2, 40:5–14, 49:2–12.) Thus, after considering the evidence cited by each party, we find Dr. Neugut’s and Dr. Oberstein’s testimony to be the most directly relevant and persuasive about what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the MSR itself. We are also persuaded by the lack of a specific contradiction regarding the understanding of one of ordinarily skill in the art by Dr. Lonberg. Even if some patients who had been previously treated with specific drugs were excluded from the study described in the MSR, we are persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the MSR as including other patients who have been treated with a prior cancer therapy drug. We are persuaded that Petitioner has met its burden of proving whether a skilled artisan would reasonably understand or infer that the limitations of claims 13, 28, 32, and 36 were disclosed in the MSR. Petitioner demonstrates what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from the MSR, not what it inherently discloses. (Contra PO Resp. 19–22.)” slip op. at 38

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

    “Patent Owner argues that the “in response to” limitation of claim 1 describes administering the claimed treatment only to patients determined to have an MSI-H tumor. (See PO Resp. 6.) But neither claim 1 nor claim 16 includes a limitation excluding the treatment of any patient, such as specifically excluding treatment of any patient who has a tumor that is not MSI-H or dMMR. Neither claim 1 nor claim 16 recites any language differentiating between patients or identifying a patient population to be excluded from treatment. Instead, claims 1 and 16 provide that if the colorectal cancer patient is tested and the cancer is determined to be MSI-H or dMMR, the patient is treated with a therapeutically effective amount of pembrolizumab. We note that the methods of claims 1 and 16 use the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” that is generally interpreted to not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition ‘comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘Comprising’ is a term of art used in claim language that means that the named elements are essential, but that other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim.”). The use of the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” in claims 1 and 16 further suggests to us that any additional steps taken in conjunction with expressly recited method steps, such as the treatment of patients who are not MSI-H or dMMR, are not excluded from the scope of the claim.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “discloses species that fall within the scope of claim 1. (See Ex. 2090 ¶ 79; Ex. 1243, 115:5–116:22; Ex. 1085, 673–75; Ex. 1086, 14; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25, 67; Ex. 1005, 4.) We are not persuaded that where species falling within the scope of claim 1 were previously known and disclosed in MSR, that claim 1 is patentable over the MSR. See Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes] not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’” the claimed arrangement or combination.” (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). After considering the parties’ arguments and the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the MSR teaches “testing or having tested a biological sample obtained from a patient” having endometrial, small bowel, or gastric cancer and, thus teaches the corresponding limitation of claim 1. d) Element [1.3]: “thereby determining that the patient’s cancer is” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 11,634,491 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,634,491
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14

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

    “B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,108,595
• Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00497 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hankins alone or in the stated combinations with Munger and Treuhaft.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Based on the plain language alone, there are “end-to-end tunnels” which “connect[] the first device and the second device” of the network system. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. As already noted, the parties appear to agree that the specification does not define explicitly an “end-to-end tunnel.” In describing Figure 33 of the ’505 patent, reproduced above in Section I.D.2, the specification describes Figure 33 as illustrating “GVN Tunnel from LAN to EDP to SRV_AP to EPD to LAN. This variation illustrates an end-to-end GVN tunnel(s) between edges of two LANs via one SRV_AP.” Ex. 1001, 33:8–11 (emphasis added). The specification further describes Figure 33 as showing one tunnel between EPD-1 and AP-1. This is joined to a second tunnel between AP-1 and EPD-2. There are three neutral hops within the Third Layer of the GVN represented by NH1, NH2, and NH3 as compared to the 13 hops on the base Internet between EH3 and EH15. Id. at 33:15–19. This disclosure shows the end-to-end GVN tunnel has two hops, one between EPD-1 and AP-1, and one from AP-1 to EPD-2. The intermediate connection at AP-1 teaches the tunnel may be interrupted, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that Figure 33 of the ’505 patent supports a construction requiring the tunnel to be “uninterrupted.” See PO Resp. 9–10; see also Section II.D.2 below (addressing Patent Owner’s “uninterrupted” argument).” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Patent Owner’s assertion that an “intermediate tunnel” is not an “endto-end tunnel. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 20–21 (arguing Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Hankins teaches only “intermediate tunnels”). Given our claim construction supra, we find Hankins’s tunnels are “end-to-end tunnels” even if they are made of separate segments. Based on our final construction, and for the reasons discussed in Section II above, on this complete record we find that Petitioner has shown that Hankins teaches or suggests limitation 1.3. For completeness, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence explaining how Hankins alone or in combination with Munger teaches the remaining limitations of claim 1, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. See Pet. 30–32, 38–44. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,630,505 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,630,505
• Synaffix B.V. v. Hangzhou Dac Biotech Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2025 · IPR2022-01531 · APJ Devon Zastrow Newman · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 29–31 are unpatentable; claims 25 and 32–34 were not shown unpatentable, and the motion to exclude was dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • RemandOther

    “review of claims 1–17, 20, 21, 24–26, and 29–34 of the ’682 patent. Paper 2 (“Pet.”), 1, 3. Patent Owner, Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”). We initially determined that the information presented in the Petition did not establish a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, and did not institute inter partes review. Paper 17. Petitioner requested Director review of our decision denying institution (Paper 18 (“Request”)). The Director delegated review of the decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”). Paper 19. Patent Owner was granted the option to file a response to Petitioner’s Request (Paper 22 (“Request Resp.”)). The Delegated Review Panel vacated our decision and remanded the case to this panel with a revised claim construction for claim 1. Paper 23 (“DRP Dec.”). On August 30, 2024, we instituted an inter partes review after remand from the Director. Paper 25 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner subsequently filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 31, “Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 36, “Reply”), Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 44, “Sur-reply”), and Petitioner filed a Sur-sur-reply (Paper 48, “Sur-sur-reply”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsOther

    “I. Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude Exhibits 1089 and 1090. Paper 50. As we did not rely on either of Exhibits 1089 or 1090 in deciding this matter, Patent Owner’s motion is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 96

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

    “For these reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments and cited evidence also” slip op. at 31

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “function as R2, and the ethyl group may function as R4, which can be a linear alkyl having 1–6 carbon atoms. We note that claim 3 permits R5 and R6 to be absent. For these reasons, the arguments presented in the Petition demonstrate that claim 3 would have been obvious over Singh’s Compound 3 when modified in view of Harris.” slip op. at 73

  Patent outcomesUS 10,131,682 mixed
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,131,682
• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11

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

    “For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,665,067
• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,116,546
• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable

    “Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,749,507

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.