• Tesla, Inc. v. Iqar Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00545 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over Neiss or Neiss and Hirasago; claims 7 and 16 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, mechanical engineering (including automotive engineering), civil engineering (transportation systems), physics, or a related field, and at least four years of experience (or the academic equivalent) in the field of transportation systems.” Pet. 2–3. Petitioner contends that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. at 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1–19, 24–26; Ex. 1004). Patent Owner “does not dispute” Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. We find Petitioner’s definition to be consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the patent and prior art of record, and adopt it as our own for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner’s interpretation of column 13, lines 40–44 of the ’161 patent to mean that a route may not have both an ending position or an intermediate position, but will have at least one of these positions. See PO Resp. 21. Patent Owner interprets “typically” in “[t]he route used by the power management device typically includes a starting position . . . , an ending position, . . . , and any intermediate positions between the initial and the final positions” to apply to either “an ending position” or “any intermediate positions” (that is, an intermediate destination) but not to both. We see no grammatical reason to limit “typically” in this manner. Rather, the plain meaning of the quoted sentence suggests that, although not typical, a route may not contain an ending position, be that a final position or an intermediate position.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained adequately how a driver’s previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Rather than explaining how the Schramm-Clapper system would sum efficient speeds, Petitioner merely asserts that “the set speeds for the energy-optimum route’s segments correspond to a plurality of efficient speeds.” Pet. 78 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, makes substantially the same assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 263. But neither Petitioner nor its witness explains adequately how a previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Patent Owner presents persuasive arguments as to why these speeds are not efficient. See PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 198–204, 208–214). Patent Owner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Hoff’s testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 211–218. Stated differently, although Petitioner explains how the Schramm-Clapper system would select the best summation of calculated energy values required to travel at selected speeds from among Schramm’s routes, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the selected speeds are efficient speeds. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 1 or its dependent claims 3 and 6–9 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Schramm and Clapper. Petitioner relies on the same contentions regarding the identical language recited in independent claim 10 (see Pet. 93), and so, for the same reasons, has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 10 or its dependent claims 12, 13, and 15–18 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Schramm and Clapper.” slip op. at 36

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not explained adequately how a driver’s previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Rather than explaining how the Schramm-Clapper system would sum efficient speeds, Petitioner merely asserts that “the set speeds for the energy-optimum route’s segments correspond to a plurality of efficient speeds.” Pet. 78 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, makes substantially the same assertion. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 263. But neither Petitioner nor its witness explains adequately how a previously driven speed or the speed limit is an efficient speed. Patent Owner presents persuasive arguments as to why these speeds are not efficient. See PO Resp. 32–33 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 198–204, 208–214). Patent Owner’s contentions are supported by Dr. Hoff’s testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 211–218. Stated differently, although Petitioner explains how the Schramm-Clapper system would select the best summation of calculated energy values required to travel at selected speeds from among Schramm’s routes, Petitioner has not explained sufficiently how the selected speeds are efficient speeds.” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 8,972,161 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,972,161
• Walt Disney Parks And Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Agile Journeys LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00029 · APJ Amee A Shah · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 10, 12–14, 16–21, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; the challenges to claims 11, 22, and 23 were not proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various non- exhaustive factors may be considered, including: “(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.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (“POSITA,” “PHOSITA,” or “skilled artisan”) “would have the equivalent of an undergraduate degree in computer science, engineering, operations research, or similar discipline, along with one year of experience in computer programming” and that “[t]he more education one has, the less experience needed to attain an ordinary level of skill[, and] . . ., more experience in the field may serve as a substitute for formal education.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner does not remark on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA nor does it provide a definition. See generally PO Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we find that the ’983 patent and the” slip op. at 16

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

    “3. Conclusion of Ground 1 Having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find,” slip op. at 70

  • BurdenMixed

    “Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of the Challenged Claims of the ’983 patent. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Challenged Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 8–10, 12–14, 16–19, 20, 21, 24, and 25, but has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that Challenged Claims 11, 22, and 23 unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  Patent outcomesUS 7,212,983 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,212,983
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 15, 2024 · IPR2023-01320 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 29 and 69 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish sensed fog or snow.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “At institution, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal, except that we omitted the qualifier “at least” and set the level of experience at two years. See Inst. Dec. 8. In its Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not dispute the Board’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 3. We accordingly maintain the level of ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Institution Decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “However, the reason we interpreted “light source” in the institution decision was that there was a question about whether the individual “microbeams” described in the Beam reference were “light sources.” See Inst. Dec. 11. Because, as explained below, we do not reach the Beam grounds, we need not construe “light source” in this final decision. We further find that that no other express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenMixed

    “measurement by sensor 9 is not affected by “scattered reflected light” due to “dirty cover glass 19”). Moreover, even if fog or snow might make the cover glass “dirty” nothing in Karlsson senses that. Instead, the reference simply explains that the switching of the light is helpful if the glass happens to be dirty. Sensor 9 is used to detect light, such as from oncoming vehicles, not fog or snow (see Ex. 1010, 9:9–26), and none of the other passages of Karlsson cited in the Petition describe sensing fog or snow. Petitioner does not identify anything in Harbers that senses fog or snow, and we do not find a description of that ourselves. Harbers describes adjusting the light based on vehicle velocity, the position of the steering wheel, “weather conditions,” or road type (e.g., motorway or country road). See Ex. 1011, 3:27–4:32. It seems reasonable to assume that the velocity and position of the steering wheel are sensed, and the reference indicates that light distribution for road type can be adjusted “by the driver.” Id. at 4:22–25. The reference is silent, however, on how the adjustment based on “weather conditions” is made. Dr. Jiao cites a passage from Braun about how its “headlights . . . are programmed . . . to detect fog and . . . provide light appropriate for driving in fog” (see Ex. 1003 ¶ 590), but Braun is not included in this ground in the Petition (see Pet. 3), and neither Petitioner not Dr. Jiao attempts to provide a reason to combine Braun for these claims. We conclude that, in order to show that these claims would have been obvious, Petitioner would have needed to show that sensing would have been disclosed or inherent in the Harbers/Karlsson combination, obvious in view of Karlsson and Harbers, or that it would have been obvious to add Braun’s fog detection to the Karlsson/Harbers combination. As Petitioner did not argue an express or inherent disclosure of fog/snow sensing in Harbers/Karlsson, did not argue that it would have been obvious to use fog/snow sensing in the Karlsson/Harbers combination, and did not include Braun in the combination, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown that claims 29 and 69 are unpatentable” slip op. at 26

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “This argument is not persuasive because, we conclude, it overstates the problem. These claims require bluish light towards the center and yellowish light to the side. Were an oncoming vehicle in the yellow area, corresponding yellow lights would be dimmed. Were the oncoming vehicle then moved to straddle the yellow and blue areas, the corresponding yellow and blue lights would be dimmed. And if the vehicle were to move to the blue area, the corresponding blue lights would be dimmed. We agree with Dr. Jiao that one of ordinary skill in this art, which is fairly predictable, would be able to avoid or sufficiently minimize any color shifting problems. See Ex. 1051 ¶¶ 162–165. We also credit Dr. Jiao’s explanation that, in the combination, there would only be “subtle variations of illuminated color within the range, such as bluish white and yellowish white” and that “all light would be recognized as white light (as defined in standards and regulations)” that not would be problematic in practice. See id. ¶ 167.9” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2023-00318 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 56–64, 66, 68–72, 74, and 76–87 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 65, 67, 73, and 75 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish the required non-contiguous LED clusters.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “F. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner submits that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have had a bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 10. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)). Some of Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s arguments depend on claim scope, and we address those implicit claim-construction arguments below.” slip op. at 7

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

    “claim construction: that a controller must associate a target’s identity with a prior target. But the claim language neither imposes nor supports any such requirement. Claim 72 is illustrative, in that it expressly states that the disputed language regarding “illumination provided to the target” is achieved “by repeating the determination of target location, selection of the 10 We agree with Petitioner that the Petition’s reference to “Beam’s system” is a clear typographical error and that the Petition’s substance and citations refer to Karlsson, not Beam. See Pet. Reply 20. cluster and variance to illumination provided to the target, relative to the laterally adjacent areas, based on the subsequent data.” Ex. 1035, 12:8–11. That supports Petitioner’s view that a system can “maintain a variance of the illumination provided to the target” by iteratively performing the “determine,” “select,” and “vary” steps. Claim 80 does not expressly state that steps are repeated, but instead requires the processor be able to identify “a plurality of positions associated with the target” and “change, responsive to the positions associated with the target, first light associated with” LEDs aimed towards the target as the target moves. Id. at 13:30–40. That language, like claim 72’s, does not impose an additional requirement of correlating a detected target to prior detected targets. Rather, it requires that a given target results in multiple identified positions that produce light changes. Based on our understanding of the claim language, Patent Owner’s assertion that, in Karlsson, “[e]ach subsequent detection of light is performed anew and has no relationship to a prior detection and may or may not correspond to the same target” (PO Resp. 52) does not preclude the claim from reading on Karlsson. As Petitioner has identified, the claim language reads on Karlsson’s system when a particular vehicle results in multiple, subsequent detections at multiple positions. Pet. 74. Although Patent Owner poses an alternative situation in which Karlsson’s system might detect other objects rather than the particular vehicle first detected (see PO Resp. 50–51), that does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because the claims do not require that a system perform only as claimed. That is, even if Karlsson’s system detects and accommodates additional targets, if a single target results in multiple light configurations, the claim language is satisfied. And Patent Owner concedes that Karlsson’s system produces “a” slip op. at 16

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

    “As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. 56 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 110 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 156 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 59–61. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17– 110:4. While there may be some tradeoffs involved in using a different camera location than Nakamura discusses, those tradeoffs would be balanced by the benefits that Karlsson discloses from locating a camera with each headlamp. Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented as a lighting change by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have had reason to modify Karlsson’s system with Nakamura’s teachings regarding capturing and using image coordinates as summarized above.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. / Porsche Cars North America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 18, 2024 · IPR2023-00315 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 24, 26, 28–32, 34, 36–40, 42, and 44–47 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 25, 27, 33, 35, 41, 43, and 48–55 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “bachelor’s degree (B.S.) in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of industry experience in the area of automotive lighting and lighting-control systems.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 44–46, 67). Petitioner adds that such artisans “may work as part of a team, for example, with computer engineers to 3 Beam, U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158, issued Nov. 7, 2000. Ex. 1005, code (45). 4 English translation of Satonaka et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-101291, published Apr. 18, 1995. Ex. 1014, 0001, code (43). 5 Kobayashi, U.S. Patent No. 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000. Ex. 1008, code (45). 6 Karlsson, WIPO Patent Publication No. 98/54030, published December 3, 1998. Ex. 1010, code (43). 7 English translation of Nakamura et al., Japan Patent Publication No. H7-65603, published Mar. 10, 1995. Ex. 1013, 0001, code (43). 8 Gotou, U.S. Patent No. 5,588,733, issued Dec. 31, 1996. Ex. 1012, code (45). integrate/program controllers and various control inputs to affect control of a given light source.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute that proposed level of skill (PO Resp. 9), and we adopt it here.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Petitioner notes that, during reexamination of the ’551 patent, the Office interpreted “electronic circuitry apparatus for the controlled powering of the LEDs” as a means-plus-function limitation and identified the corresponding structure as “logic control electronics unit 7.” Id. at 8 (citing Ex. 1002, 929–39; Ex. 1001, 25:34–52). Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary because Patent Owner’s arguments do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” PO Resp. 9. As to the “electronic circuitry apparatus,” Patent Owner does not dispute that the claim language reads on the asserted prior art under any construction. Thus, we need not address the construction of that term. 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)).” slip op. at 7

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

    “As to the advantages of Karlsson’s lamp-located sensor, nothing about that arrangement would have changed in the proposed combination. As described, Petitioner proposes using aspects of Nakamura’s processing in combination with Karlsson’s physical system. See Pet. 54–58. Thus, the combination preserves any advantages Karlsson obtains by locating a sensor with each illumination system. As to a change of perspective, the record does not support that Nakamura’s processing relies on a single, unchangeable perspective. Rather, Nakamura discloses identifying relevant image regions through reference markers such as “white lines of the lane” and adjustments such as “correction amount α” to accommodate the reference markers. Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 36–46; see Pet. Reply 58 (“Nakamura explains how to implement the coordinate mapping of the pixels received by a camera.”). Thus, Nakamura’s approach is already suitable to a changed perspective and Petitioner did not have to explain further details of the required adaption. See also Ex. 1052 ¶¶ 125 (“Wherever the camera is located on the vehicle, a simple calibration for camera location versus driver’s viewpoint would be conducted to carry on the image processing.”), 168 (noting that the same reasoning applies to the Karlsson–Nakamura combination as the Beam–Satonaka combination). Additionally, Patent Owner has not persuasively supported its assertion that the changed perspective—locating sensors at the headlamps rather than centered at the top of the windshield—would impair the system’s ability to detect other vehicles. See PO Resp. 57–59. Patent Owner’s expert could not testify as to the camera locations used to generate the images that form the basis for Patent Owner’s argument, as he was not present at the test that generated those images. Ex. 1053, 104:22–105:14, 106:16–107:6, 109:17–110:4. It is inapposite that “Nakamura does not contemplate LEDs and therefore does not control light in a similar fashion” as Patent Owner argues (PO Resp. 60), because Nakamura’s teachings relate to identifying regions in the illuminated field that should be dimmed. Ex. 1013 ¶ 45. Such a determination aligns with Karlsson’s own similar determination, and would be implemented by Karlsson’s system. See, e.g., Ex. 1010, 9:18–26. Having considered the full record, we find that skilled artisans would have” slip op. at 14

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

    “however, has not presented Mr. Stam’s declaration as a declaration in this case, instead relying on its expert, Dr. Turk, who “reviewed the objective evidence statements in the Stam declaration.” PO Resp. 68 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 215–216). Dr. Turk, however, was not able to recall the meaning of multiple terms he used in his declaration (Ex. 1053, 124:5–135:18) and asserted that he determined that ADB technology falls within the claims by looking at the Stam declaration, without independently verifying statements in the Stam declaration or reviewing the documents upon which those statements were based (id. at 135:19–137:16). Dr. Turk’s declaration addressing secondary considerations is not credible as to the substance of the asserted secondary considerations, and Patent Owner’s asserted secondary considerations are not persuasive for that reason alone. Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner has not shown any evidence that is “the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.” Pet. Reply 25 (quoting Fox Factory, Inc. v. Sram, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373–74 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (internal quotations omitted)). In particular, Petitioner asserts that all the elements of the claimed invention were known in the prior art, and thus that Patent Owner cannot show a nexus between any long-felt need or industry praise and the challenged claims. Id. at 25–26. As to independent claims 24 and 32, Patent Owner does not assert any “unique characteristics that are novel and nonobvious over the asserted art.” See PO Resp. 70–71. Patent Owner asserts that claim 40 includes “adapting light emission to provide at least two dark zones with ‘light in-between’” and that the Stam declaration correlates that characteristic with the objective evidence. Id. The Stam declaration addresses claim language reciting illumination “that preserves a first level of illumination illuminating past the other vehicle while preventing glare to a driver of the other vehicle” and asserts that an article discussing that a commercial product’s “[i]ndividually controlled LEDs also provide two or more dark zones with ‘light in-between,’ allowing continuous use of a vehicle’s high-beams to maximize visibility and provide a safer driving experience.” Ex. 2023, 734 (Stam declaration ¶ 117) (quoting Ex. 2023, 182) (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner does not explain and we do not understand the connection between the claim language recited in the declaration and that of claim 40. But even accepting that the reexamination exhibit shows industry praise for a system with claim 40’s feature, Patent Owner has not shown that the feature was novel. As discussed above, we conclude that Karlsson discloses that aspect of claim 40 without modification. See supra at 16 (§ II.B.5). Accordingly, even viewing Patent Owner’s evidence as credible and appropriate, we conclude that it would not establish the required nexus for claim 40. To be clear, Patent Owner’s asserted evidence would not establish nexus for any aspect of the independent claims, because each element is found in the prior art and the only elements for which Petitioner asserts a combination of prior-art teachings—those relating to image coordinates—are not those that Patent Owner relies on for a unique characteristic of the claimed invention. Patent Owner asserts further that industry praise was directed at the “Predictive Curve Illumination feature” recited by dependent claims that require the ability to “accommodate the upcoming road curvature” by adapting the light. PO Resp. 8, 70–71. Patent Owner relies on a report of a new lighting system used by BMW that states, “[t]he benefit of a glare-free function is not only to shadow out other cars but also to provide visibility for upcoming curves and dangerous situations; there is a clear safety gain by illuminating this curve in front of the driver.” Ex. 2023, 727 (quoting Ex. 2023, 177) (emphasis omitted). That statement does not itself establish a nexus to the “Predictive Curve Illumination” claims.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,955,551
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,953,641
• Qualcomm Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01493 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 are unpatentable over PIC16C7X anticipation or obviousness grounds; claims 7 and 14 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a similar field with at least two years of experience in digital circuit and computer design, or a person with a master’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a similar field with a specialization in digital circuit and computer design.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 32). Patent Owner adopts that definition of a person of ordinary skill. PO Resp. 10. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill as it appears to be consistent with the level of skill reflected by the specification and in the asserted prior-art references.” slip op. at 5

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

    “construction. We read the plain language of a “programmable digital circuit block” as using “block” to suggest circuitry considered as a unit. Ex. 1001, 8:35–39. While a “block” of circuity could apply to a logical block, as under Petitioner’s view, the specification counsels in favor of considering the block as a physical structure. The specification describes configuration of “programmable digital circuit blocks . . . by changing the contents of a few registers therein,” suggesting that a block’s configuration registers are located physically within the block. Ex. 1001, 2:4–7 (emphasis added). Further, it describes how certain design approaches can “minimize the size of the programmable digital circuit block.” Id. at 2:9–13; accord id. at 4:15–16 (“[T]he programmable digital circuit block 100 is highly efficient in terms of die area.”), 4:26–34 (describing an embodiment with limited functionality “to further reduce the size of the programmable digital circuit block 100”). By referencing size, the specification directly implicates that a block is a physical circuit unit.” slip op. at 21

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “Patent Owner argues that “[b]ecause a BSF after a power-on-reset cannot configure PWM mode,” the CCP is not “‘configurable to perform any one of’ capture, compare, or PWM mode” with a single register write operation. PO Resp. 46 (emphasis omitted). We do not agree, because nothing in the claim language requires the same instruction be used to configure the claimed programmable digital circuit block. Rather, it requires that only one operation be used to select the circuit block’s function from at least two possible functions. Because the BSF instruction uses a single write operation to set a bit in the CCPxCON register that can select either the capture or compare function, the claim language is satisfied. Moreover, even if Petitioner had to show that the CCP module must be configurable to function in any of the three modes with a single operation, Petitioner has done so. That the PWM mode is selected using a different instruction (COMF) than the capture or compare modes (BSF) does not take PIC16’s disclosures outside the challenged claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “to support the patentability of claims 2, 9, and 16. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that these claims are patentable over the asserted art because the ’407 patent’s claimed invention “solved a long-felt need . . . for a configurable computer architecture without the programming overhead and inefficiency of an FPGA.” PO Resp. 80–83. Patent Owner asserts benefits of the ’407 patent’s approach, citing exclusively to the specification.7 Id. Patent Owner then concludes that “[t]hese benefits, which were not provided in the prior art, support the nonobviousness of the claimed invention.” Id. at 83 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 198 (Patent Owner’s expert, repeating the same statement without additional support)). As discussed above, we agree with Petitioner that PIC16 discloses configuration of a programmable digital circuit block using a single register write operation. See supra at 6–19. PIC16 therefore solved the need that Patent Owner asserts, prior to invention of the ’407 patent.8 7 Patent Owner’s expert repeats Patent Owner’s claims, but provides no additional support. Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 194–197. 8 Even if we had not concluded that Patent Owner’s asserted need was already met before the challenged patent, Patent Owner has not identified objective evidence to support its view. Citations to the challenged patent’s specification do not offer a reliable basis on which to conclude that the claims were nonobvious, and Patent Owner’s declarant provides no additional evidence to support his statements. See Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 194–197; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). We have considered Patent Owner’s assertions regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness, together with Petitioner’s submissions regarding PIC16 and AN594, and conclude that the subject matter of claims 2, 9, and 16 would have been obvious over PIC16 and AN594 for the reasons given by Petitioner.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 6,765,407 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 6,765,407
• Qualcomm Incorporated / Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v. Monterey Research, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2022 · IPR2021-00704 · APJ John F Horvath · IPR · Final written decision

  Qualcomm proved claims 7–32 and 53–61 unpatentable; AMD and STM proved claims 7, 9, 11, 13–15, 17, 19–21, 24–32, and 53–61 unpatentable, principally over Oh-based obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “(“AMD”) and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (“STM”) were joined as parties to this proceeding. See Papers 22, 25. Moreover, in Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Monterey Research, LLC, IPR2020-00990, Paper 45 (PTAB, Nov. 23, 2021), we determined AMD and STM showed by a preponderance of evidence that claims 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22, and 23 of the ’805 patent are unpatentable. Thus, AMD and STM are estopped from challenging the patentability of those claims in this proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) (2018). Nonetheless, to challenge the patentability of claims 9, 11, 13–15, 17, 19–21, and 24–26, AMD and STM must demonstrate in this proceeding how the prior art maps to the limitations of claims 8, 10, 12, 16, 18, 22, and 23, from which these claims depend. Unless noted otherwise, we collectively refer to Qualcomm, AMD, and STM as “Petitioner.”” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “of the invention as someone that would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, applied physics, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of memory circuits, related hardware design, or the equivalent.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1019 ¶¶ 50–53). In our Institution Decision, we adopted this description as our own. See Dec. Inst. 15–16. Neither party disputes that preliminary finding, which we maintain for purposes of this decision. See PO Resp. 14; Pet. Reply 1–29.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer not foundMixed

    “define the shapes of “substantially oblong active regions” was clearly erroneous. First, the quoted passage uses permissive rather than definitional language. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 7:18–21 (“in an embodiment” and “an NMOS active region may be considered to be substantially oblong if . . .”) (emphasis added). Second, the quoted passage only describes the shapes of NMOS active regions. Elsewhere, the Specification discloses that PMOS active regions may be substantially oblong if they are “substantially rectangular,” i.e., if they “have a length that is substantially constant across the width . . . [and] a width that is substantially constant across the length.” Compare id. at 6:65–7:4, with id. at 7:20–34. Third, rather than limiting the plain and ordinary meaning of “substantially oblong,” the quoted passage describes NMOS active regions that can be considered “substantially oblong” even though they are non-rectangular. See id. at 7:4–6 (“an NMOS active region . . . may have some variation in width”), 7:20–24 (“an NMOS active region may be considered to be substantially oblong . . . if the width of the region varies by approximately 1/3 or less along the length”) (emphasis added), 7:24–28 (“an NMOS active region may be considered substantially oblong . . . if the width of the region by design varies only with the respective widths of the access and latch transistors”) (emphasis added), 7:28–30 (disclosing “‘substantially oblong’ may refer to any structure width,” implying a variable width having a maximum) (emphasis added). For the reasons discussed above, we find a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known the quoted passage of the Specification does not define the shape of substantially oblong active regions. Therefore, the patentee’s prosecution history statement to that effect did not disavow the plain and ordinary meaning of that term, which includes substantially rectangular active regions. See Biotec, 249 F.3d at 1348. Instead, because the quoted passage describes active regions that can be considered “substantially oblong” even though they are not rectangular and the patentee argued that Kim’s L-shaped active regions could not be considered “substantially oblong,” the patentee’s statement was a disavowal of non-rectangular active regions that do not have one of the shapes described at column 7, lines 20–34 of the Specification. For the reasons discussed above, we construe a “substantially oblong active region” to mean “(1) a substantially rectangular active region or (2) a non-rectangular active region that has (a) a substantially constant length and a width that varies by approximately 1/3 or less along its length, (b) a substantially constant length and a width that varies only by the widths of the access and latch transistors, or (c) a length that is greater than or equal to approximately three times its maximum width.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “For the reasons discussed above, we construe a “substantially oblong active region” to mean “(1) a substantially rectangular active region or (2) a non-rectangular active region that has (a) a substantially constant length and a width that varies by approximately 1/3 or less along its length, (b) a substantially constant length and a width that varies only by the widths of the access and latch transistors, or (c) a length that is greater than or equal to approximately three times its maximum width.”” slip op. at 14

  Patent outcomesUS 6,534,805 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 6,534,805

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.