• Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 25, 2026 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as obvious over each of the five asserted §103 grounds, including Carmel with Mattavelli and Carmel with Wang.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that at the relevant time of the invention claimed in the ’849 patent (April 2005),2 a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “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,” where “[a]dditional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–23). In the Decision on Institution, the Board agreed with and applied Petitioner’s proposed definition. Dec. on Inst. 9–11. Patent Owner proposes a very similar definition of “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two to three years of experience in the design or development of (1) video processing systems, audio processing systems, and/or the equivalent; and (2) networking and communications systems, or the equivalent,” where “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 23 2 Petitioner states that it “uses [the earliest possible priority date of April 18, 2005] as the priority date of the challenged claims.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner agrees that the “earliest effective filing date” of the challenged claims is April 18, 2005. PO Resp. 19. The ’849 patent is expired. See Ex. 1001, codes (63), (*); Paper 8, 33. would be the same under either level” of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Based on the full record developed during trial, including our review of the ’849 patent and the types of problems and solutions described in the ’849 patent and cited prior art, we maintain the previously adopted definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, but remove the term “at least” to avoid unnecessary ambiguity. Our analysis herein, however, would be the same under either party’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 7

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

    “37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioner states in the Petition that it “does not presently contend that any term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. Patent Owner “does not believe any terms of the ’849 [p]atent require express constructions for purposes of” this proceeding. PO Resp. 24; Sur-Reply 11. The Board did not interpret any terms in the Decision on Institution. Dec. on Inst. 8. We agree that no terms require express interpretation to determine whether Petitioner has met its burden to prove unpatentability of the challenged claims. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe” slip op. at 8

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

    “Finally, Petitioner explains in detail why and how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Carmel and Mattavelli, with a reasonable expectation of success. See Pet. 50–55. Specifically, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Carmel’s system to use “Mattavelli’s CGD techniques to optimize the decoding of in more efficient network bandwidth usage and improved playback of multimedia data streams. Id. at 50, 52–53, 55. Petitioner 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. Id. at 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:35–49, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309–10). Petitioner argues that Carmel and Mattavelli both pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Id. at 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–11). Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that Carmel and Mattavelli “complement[]” each other because Carmel addresses constraints on available network bandwidth and Mattavelli addresses limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, code (57), 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan 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 the best possible playback experience. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Petitioner also contends that Mattavelli teaches that 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. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1002 express disclosure that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mattavelli’s complementary teachings regarding decoding because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Id. at 53–54 (quoting Ex. 1003, 10:50–54; citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218). Patent Owner in its Response does not dispute that Carmel and Mattavelli teach the preamble and limitations 1[a.i]–1[c.i], or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references’ teachings in the manner asserted by Petitioner.6 Nonetheless, the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378 (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). Having reviewed Carmel and Mattavelli, on the complete trial record, we agree with Petitioner’s analysis, as supported by the testimony of” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,771,849 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,771,849
• Clearwater Paper Corporation v. Graphic Packaging International LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00878 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable as anticipated by Cleveland and obvious over Nakagawa and over Nakagawa combined with Tanner.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or chemical engineering, materials science, polymer science, or equivalent coursework, at least a year of experience developing paper-based laminates involving the application of polymer coatings to a substrate, and the appropriate industry familiarity with biodegradability standards and degradability techniques [and] . . . [l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of education, such as a master’s degree, and vice versa. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 50). Clearwater’s definition is uncontested, and we apply that definition here, as it accords with the level of skill reflected in the asserted prior art and the problems addressed in the specification of the ’126 patent. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We have reviewed the cited testimony of Clearwater’s expert, including their calculations for arriving at a coat weight in Nakagawa that falls within the claimed range. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 132–33. We find that testimony, which is unrebutted, both credible and supported by the evidence of record. Thus, in light of Clearwater’s contentions, the cited portions of Nakagawa, and the unrebutted testimony of Clearwater’s expert, we are persuaded that Nakagawa discloses or otherwise suggests each and every element of claim 1. See Pet. 45–54, 60–64. Clearwater also persuades us that Cleveland discloses the additional subject matter of dependent claims 2, 3, and 11. See Pet. 64–66. Thus, we determine that Clearwater demonstrates that claims 1–3 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Nakagawa. F. Ground 3—Obviousness Over Nakagawa and Tanner” slip op. at 17

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1) “based on both its provisional and non-provisional filing dates.” Inst. Dec. 4 n.5. We were persuaded by Clearwater’s proof that Cleveland’s provisional (Ex. 1006) is “virtually identical” to Cleveland itself (Ex. 1005) and that the provisional provides written description support for at least claim 1 of Cleveland. See Pet. 18–21 (citing Ex. 1006, 2–6, 9). We were also persuaded by Clearwater’s showing that the provisional provides written support for the subject matter relied upon in Cleveland. Id. at 21–40 (citing Ex. 1006, 1–9). We are still persuaded by Clearwater’s showing. Thus, we see no reason to disturb our earlier finding that Cleveland is prior art to the ’126 patent.” slip op. at 7

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

    “protectant layers has “a coat weight of from 5 to 30 lbs/3000 ft2.” As noted by Clearwater, Cleveland discloses a total coat weight for layers 14 and 16 as falling within the claimed range. Pet. 32–34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 32). In particular, Cleveland discloses that “the coextruded layer of copolyester (irrespective of which side of the substrate the layer is disposed) is of a total coat weight of between about 10 and about 40 lb/3000 ft2 in any combination of between about 80/20 to 20/80 parts by weight of Ecoflex to Biomax,” of which “a total coat weight of 25 lb/3000 ft2 is preferred.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 32. As disclosed, Cleveland’s total coat weight range of 10–40 lb/3000 ft2 falls almost entirely within the claimed range, and the preferred total coat weight of 25 lb/3000 ft2 falls squarely within the claimed range. Thus, Cleveland satisfies claim elements [1.3.2] and [1.5.2]. See Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art.”) (citation omitted). As such, we find that Clearwater adequately demonstrates that Cleveland discloses all the elements of claim 1. 4. Dependent Claims” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,637,126 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,637,126
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 21, 2026 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst because the combination teaches the claim limitations and has motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On February 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the appeal vacating the Second Final Decision as to all challenged claims and remanding for further proceedings. Netflix II, 7. The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s claim construction, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the claim construction the 6 The First Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42), where we granted-in-part, denied-in-part, and dismissed-in-part that Motion. See 1st Final Dec. 28–37. Our determinations on that Motion were a part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. As the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the First Final Written Decision, we determine our conclusions with respect to that Motion remain undisturbed. Federal Circuit adopted. Id. The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on March 23, 2026.” slip op. at 4

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in video streaming and media security or . . . a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, or a similar field with a specialization in video streaming and media security.” Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67). Patent Owner does not refute Petitioner’s assessment and appears to apply such a level of skill in its arguments against combining Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst to teach or suggest the elements of the challenged claims. See generally PO Resp. As such, we continue to adopt and apply Petitioner’s unopposed position as to the level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision. See Inst. Dec. 6; 1st Final Dec. 6; 2nd Final Dec. 10.” slip op. at 7

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

    “In response, we conclude that the most natural reading of limitation [l] results from examination of the entire limitation: “locating encryption information that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” Ex. 1001, 27:54–57. The “within” most naturally connotes where the encrypted portions of frames of video occur, as opposed to determining where the encryption information may be located. Patent Owner’s interpretation is not wrong, i.e., the limitation could be read as Patent Owner suggests, leading to a narrower construction, but we are not persuaded that the construction of limitation [l] must be so limited, on the basis of the words themselves. We continue to reject Patent Owner’s interpretation that limitation [l] requires locating encryption information within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. See Inst. Dec. 27–30; 1st Final Dec. 8. Although it is apparent that encryption information can be found within the requested portions, we are not persuaded that the claim language or ’588 Patent implicitly or explicitly requires such a relationship. Likewise, although embodiments disclosed in the Specification of the ’588 Patent are consistent with Patent Owner’s more restrictive construction, the Specification also is consistent with the more grammatically correct construction as well. Thus, we construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encrypted portions of frames of video be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video, but we do not construe limitation [l] as requiring that the encryption information be within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “We are persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix I, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17–19, 69–70). We agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41–15:60). We determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• ARM Ltd v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00207 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 11–14, and 16–19 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, physics, or a similar field, and (2) approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to microelectronic architecture design, including experience with cache management in multicore systems-on-a-chip (SoCs). (Ex-1003 ¶¶50-51.) More related education would compensate for fewer years of work experience (and vice versa). (Ex-1003 ¶¶50-51.) Pet. 4–5. This definition was adopted in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Patent Owner does not dispute the finding. PO Resp. 5–6. For the purpose of our Decision, we maintain the finding made in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 15

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

    “1. “a single caching agent” (claim 1) We note a construction issue from the ’1344 IPR where we construed a “single caching agent,” which is recited in claim 1 here. ’1344 IPR Final Decision, 16–18. We concluded that a “‘single caching agent’ means ‘one caching agent for the processor, which may be formed from distributed portions.’” Id. at 18. We adopted that construction in our Institution Decision in this case. Inst. Dec. 15.” slip op. at 16

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

    “2. Remaining claim terms Independent claims 11 and 16 include different language as to “caching agent.” Claim 11 recites “a caching agent.” Ex. 1001, 8:18. Claim 16 similarly recites “a first caching agent.” Id. at 8:47–48. Neither claims 11 or 16 includes claim 1’s recitation of “distributed portions. The “caching agent” limitations of claims 11 and 16, are not at issue. Accordingly, no construction is necessary.” slip op. at 18

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Pet. Br. 2. Further, Petitioner alleges the ’1344 Final Decision was not appealed by Patent Owner and is therefore a basis for issue preclusion. Id. (citing Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Indus., LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1311–12 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 8,984,228 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,984,228
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01151 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330 10 See Ex. 1001, 9:3–10 (explaining that, at step 17, rule gate 120 may “determine . . . that the packets comprise data corresponding to the network-threat indicators, for example, by correlating the packets with one or more packets previously determined . . . to comprise data corresponding to the network-threat indicators based on data stored in [the] logs”).” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-01199 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 24, and 25 unpatentable as obvious over Buruganahalli; the copying evidence did not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Director reviewDirector review, deniedDenied

    “not object to a new panel of APJs hearing this case if remanded.” Id. at 20. As such, Patent Owner requested Director Review (Paper 74), asking that the Director “de-institute,” based on an abuse of discretion. The Director (Paper 75) denied the request and directed the Board to assign a new panel on remand (see Papers 76, 77). B.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in The Art We adopt the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the prior Decision. See Decision 25. F.” slip op. at 13

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

    “This argument is unpersuasive because Buruganahalli uses rules/policies to filter encrypted packets by correlating them with handshaking packets that have unencrypted data, in the same way that is done in the ‘856 Patent. The only “filtering step” in the patent that “use[s] rules to filter encrypted packets without decryption” (PO Resp. 20) is the hello message approach used, for example, at steps 19 and 23 (see id.), which is clearly disclosed in Buruganahalli.7 As explained above, the ‘856 Patent does not describe applying rules to encrypted packets. Instead, it describes (a) filtering encrypted packets by correlating them with unencrypted data in other packets and (b) by decrypting the packets and applying the rules that are recited in the claims to unencrypted data. As also explained above, the amendment added the rules of step 22, which are applied to decrypted data, to a claim that was drafted to cover filtering of encrypted packets. However, among the criteria used in the filtering performed at step 22 is a “uniform resource identifier (URI),” which, we conclude, covers Buruganahalli’s “domain name.” Thus, despite the error made during prosecution, the claims that issued cover Buruganahalli’s method of determining that a session should be filtered based on a domain name in unencrypted handshake data.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. / Cisco Systems, Inc. et al. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2026 · IPR2022-00182 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 1, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under § 103 over Buruganahalli; the evidence of copying does not outweigh the strong obviousness showing.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Scope on Remand On remand, the panel here will not address issues outside the scope of the Federal Circuit’s mandate. See Hayward Indus., Inc. v. Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc., 814 F. App’x 592, 597 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The Board is bound by the terms of a mandate issued by an appellate court. Aydin Corp. v. Widnall, 121 F.3d 726, 1997 WL 413329, at *3 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ‘Unless remanded by [an appellate] court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.’ Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”). The sole issue on remand is whether “the evidence of copying” is sufficient to overcome the obviousness ground of unpatentability over Buruganahalli. Centripetal Networks, 19–20. We restate portions of the former Final Written Decision, as an aid to the reader, but substantially incorporate the analysis of the prior Decision below. C.” slip op. at 4

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › CopyingObjective indicia outweighedNot shown unpatentable

    “given to the Eastern District of Virginia court’s opinion because it was later vacated. The district court considered all of the Read factors (applying Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826-827 (Fed. Cir. 1992)), of which only the first factor is directed to deliberate copying, although factors 2 and 9 bear indirectly on the issue of copying. The district court determined that “[t]he fact that Cisco released products with Centripetal’s functionality within a year of these meetings goes beyond mere coincidence. Therefore, the fact that Cisco’s system mirrors the functionality of the Centripetal patents is compelling evidence that damages should be enhanced for copying.” Ex. 1027, 157. Without more, it is difficult to evaluate the processes that the district court employed to reach its determination. As the Federal Circuit instructed, we need “not [] go searching throughout the entire litigation record to find the evidence of copying, but [we have] an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before” us. Centripetal Networks, 19. We continue to determine that the vacated finding of the district court should be provided little weight, especially in view of the strong case of obviousness discussed above. Examination of Aaron Striegel We also do not find the Aaron Striegel’s testimony to be particularly persuasive. The testimony provides statements such as “I found evidence that it could be plausible,” “[s]o we can see the timeline is very plausible,” and “I found it very plausible that indeed that this technology could have made its way into these respective accused products.” Ex. 1029, 31:12–32:3. This testimony suggests the possibility of copying but does not demonstrate actual evidence of copying. At most, this testimony indicates that further consideration of the underlying evidence is warranted, but does little to support an ultimate finding of copying. Again, even taking this testimony as evidence of copying, it still must stand up against the strong case of obviousness discussed above.” slip op. at 40

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

    “The District Court did not provide an element-by-element analysis of how the claims of the ‘856 Patent cover this description. See Ex. 1027, 41. However, from the description, we understand the Court to have concluded that the system receives rules, identifies a set of packets as part of a flow using the NetFlow logs, “determines” that encrypted packets in the flow match known malicious signatures based on unencrypted data in other packets (e.g., data in the SNI), and then filters the flow based in a URI (e.g., that from the SNI), routing it to the null interface. The Court does not describe how the system “determines” that encrypted packets match known malicious signatures based on information in unencrypted packets, but we assume that is done as in the ‘856 Patent, by correlation, i.e., an encrypted packet is “determined” to match a threat indicator if it is in the same flow as a packet with unencrypted information that matches the threat indicator.10 With that understanding, we conclude that the allegedly infringing system operates, as least at the level described in the court’s decision, in the same way Buruganahalli’s system operates, filtering encrypted packets due to their presence in a flow that includes packets with unencrypted data, such as in a handshaking packet. It follows that Patent Owner is unable to establish a nexus, because “[w]here the offered secondary consideration actually results from something other than what is both claimed and novel in the claim, there is no nexus to the merits of the claimed invention.” Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharms. Ltd., 853 F.3d 1316, 1330” slip op. at 38

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “need and industry recognition for the technology claimed in the ‘856 Patent because it describes the problem of detecting threats in encrypted traffic as ‘unsolvable.’” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 1027, 64). Given that this is a press release by a company announcing that company’s new commercial product, however, we 8 The concurrence reevaluates Patent Owner’s evidence of industry praise and nexus, but we deem such considerations outside the remit of the Federal Circuit’s remand. are reluctant to give the “unsolvable” characterization much weight, as it may amount to puffery. But beyond that, it appears that the problem identified as “unsolvable” in the press release––“detect[ing] known attack signatures even in encrypted traffic”––had, in fact, already been solved in Buruganahalli, using the very same hello message, flow correlation, and man-in-the-middle techniques described in the ‘856 Patent. We thus cannot say that the press release identifies a long-felt need that was actually unsolved. See ZUP, 896 F.3d at 1374 (explaining that “[w]here the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention are . . . minimal . . . it cannot be said that any long-felt need was unsolved”) (quoting Geo. M. Martin Co. v. All. Mach. Sys. Int’l LLC, 618 F.3d 1294, 1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (first alteration in original)).” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 9,917,856 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,917,856
• Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Suga and Gorsuch; the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion to exclude.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner also asserts prejudice for “not knowing” which Suga Exhibit “the Petitioner and Petitioner’s expert is relying on (see Exhibit 1021 and 1022),” without further explanation. Mot. Reply 6. Exhibit 1022 is a dictionary definition of “node.” How this relates to Patent Owner’s argument of prejudice is not explained. Id. at 5–6. The Board perceives no difficulty following Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, which cite Suga Exhibit 1005, including the testimony of Dr. Buehrer regarding the English language translation of Suga, which is identical in Exhibits 1005 and 1017. Patent Owner, moreover, opted not to depose Dr. Buehrer, did not file a deposition transcript of Dr. Buehrer in this proceeding, and does not allege any difference or substantive deficiency in the English language translation in Suga Exhibits 1005 and 1017, which are identical. We fail to see any prejudice to Patent Owner.” slip op. at 84

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

    “d. Conclusion for Claim 1 For the reasons given above, we determine the Petition establishes by” slip op. at 60

  Patent outcomesUS 9,022,294 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00003 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8, 10, 12, 14, and 16–20 are unpatentable under § 103; the Board denied Patent Owner’s revised motion to amend.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “[W]ould have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and 2–3 years of practical engineering experience relating to information security systems that employ cryptographic keys to encrypt/decrypt digital data. Additional education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s expert regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. RMTA 19. Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Villasenor, notes that “obviousness must be viewed from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the field of information security using cryptographic keys for encryption and decryption of digital data, and my opinions are rendered on the basis of the definition of the ordinary artisan set forth in the Petition in view of that further clarification.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 19. Based on a review of the record, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art and ’178 patent specification. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “In reply, Patent Owner substantially repeats its arguments against Petitioner’s reliance on Peterka for the claim 1 content encryption key identifiers requirements. Reply RMTA 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 121; Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 89, 93–95); see RMTA 14–15. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the reasons discussed in Section III.D.2.e)(2) above.” slip op. at 65

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

    “Patent Owner argues that there was no motivation to combine Peterka with Suzuki because Petitioner has argued that “Peterka can already identify content keys by using the allegedly unique sequence numbers or time stamps assigned to each message carrying a single content key.” PO Resp. 41–42 (citing Pet. 25). Patent Owner also challenges motivation to combine Suzuki because it “is not directed to a pay-by-time, pay-per-view, or subscription distribution model, in which a content key grants access to content that different clients must individually decide to purchase in discrete units or increments.” Id. at 36–37. Petitioner responds that, because Peterka disclosed alternative embodiments that did not use sequence numbers or time stamps to identify EMM/ECM messages, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated specifically assign identifications to individual keys as taught in Suzuki. Reply 22 (citing Pet. 26). Petitioner also argues that whether Suzuki was directed to unpurchased content was irrelevant, because Suzuki is cited to show multiple key responses were conventional. Id. at 19–20. Patent Owner does not otherwise specifically address the issue of motivation to combine Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov. See generally PO Resp. Nonetheless the burden remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1378. We find, based on the record, that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Peterka, Suzuki, and Bocharov as proffered by Petitioner with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 45

  • ScopeMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “We agree with Petitioner that the substitute claims are broadening. Because the amended wording only requires the key request to be made “in response to detecting” the boundary, rather than “ahead of” the boundary, the request can occur before or after the boundary. This is not a fanciful or unlikely possibility — such delayed requests are specifically contemplated by the ’178 patent: [I]f the packager 104 is unable to obtain a new content encryption key from the WFM 102 prior to the expiration of the current content encryption key, the packager 104 will continue to use the current content encryption key until such time as it is able to obtain a new key from the WFM 102. Ex. 1001, 6:32–37. It should be noted that the fixed period duration for key rotation may be viewed as a "target" period, as the packager 104 may not expire a key on the exact boundary. Ex. 1001, 8:9–11. The key expiration time from the WFM 102 may be viewed as a "suggested" expiration time, as the packager 104 may not be able to expire the key at the exact specified time.” slip op. at 56

  Patent outcomesUS 9,313,178 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,313,178
• Google LLC / Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Ericsson ABAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00004 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 11–17, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; the revised motion to amend proposing substitute claims 21–36 is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “Board first must determine whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” Lectrosonics, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). Accordingly, a patent owner must provide a claim listing reproducing each proposed substitute claim, and must make an initial showing to demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the proposed claims are supported in the original disclosure (and any earlier filed disclosure for which the benefit of the earlier filing date is sought); (3) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; and (4) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent or introduce new subject matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” slip op. at 60

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “Accordingly, we agree with Petitioner’s contentions regarding the” slip op. at 28

  • Skill levelOther

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 11,122,313 unpatentable
  Nonecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,122,313

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.