- PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00741 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of the ’493 patent on all asserted §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its contentions of obviousness for claim 1 of the ’559 patent and claim 1 of the ’493 patent.” slip op. at 22
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 11,376,493 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00740 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 12, 17, and 20 of both patents on all asserted § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of each patent is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For the reasons stated in this Decision, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Because Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the ’559 patent and at least one claim of the ’493 patent are unpatentable, we institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all grounds raised in the instant Petitions. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill, would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744, issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 US Patent No. 6,369,952 B1, issued Apr. 9, 2002 (Ex. 1004). 4 WO 03/107039 A2, published Dec. 24, 2003 (Ex. 1008). 5 US Patent Application US 2002/0163486 A1, published Nov. 7, 2002 (Ex. 1009). person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. 740 Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 21−25); 741 Pet. 4. Patent Owner does not propose a level of ordinary skill. As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“At this stage, we do not find Patent Owner’s proposed construction persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” The Paper 10 in the 740 IPR; and Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Sur-reply, filed as Paper 11 in the 740 IPR. Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Ex. 1001, 2:38−40, 2:63–3:2, 3:23–25, 6:11−13, 6:46−48, 8:48– 62, 9:23–28, 20:28−58, 22:1−4. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (740 Ex. 1001, 1:58−60), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” 740 Ex. 1001, 11:12−14. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing a physical playfield with defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a physical playfield with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Second, Petitioner’s explanation of its alternative theory—that Rallison is evidence of the knowledge that a head-mounted display would include a processor—provides sufficient rational underpinning for the combination of teachings. Petitioner proffers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that including a processor in a head-mounted display is a known technique to improve a similar device (Jaszlics’s visor) in the same way and predictably. 740 Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1004, 10:4−14; 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 80). We do not find at this juncture that this argument is unsupported or speculative, as Patent Owner argues. Additionally, we understand Patent Owner’s arguments—that Jaszlics system would have no need for incorporating a processor in the visor as taught by Rallison—as contentions that Jaszlics either teaches away from such a combination or the benefits of such a configuration are outweighed by significant drawbacks. These contentions are underdeveloped and unsupported. Petitioner’s argument and evidence, at this juncture, reasonably explain the reasons to combine under precedent that there is a motivation to combine when “a known technique ‘has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way.’” See Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The location of the processor in the head-mounted display of Jaszlics does not need to be the best option, so long as it is a suitable option. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Finally, as for Rallison and Jaszlics’s alleged incompatibility, we are not persuaded that more evidence is needed at this juncture for details on the modification of Jaszlics to include the processor of Rallison. Such argument amounts to a bodily incorporation argument, and our analysis focuses rather on whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the “teachings” as alleged. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, we note the evidence presented by Petitioner that a head-mounted display’s use of electronics to generate the displayed video images was well known. 740 Cooperstock Decl. ¶ 82; Ex. 1004, 10:4−14.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,828,559 - PTAB · Sep 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00737 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Meta would show at least one challenged claim unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Institution of an inter partes review may not be authorized by statute “unless . . . 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). Upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, and 17 of the ’476 patent. Accordingly, we institute the requested inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or similar field, with two years combined experience in designing and/or developing interactive location-based computer systems/software, such as video games or other simulations incorporating location information (such as GPS information associated with a user’s physical location), and in designing 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes revisions to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application claiming priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. 2 US Patent No. 6,166,744 issued Dec. 26, 2000 (Ex. 1003). 3 Wayne Piekarski et al., “Integrating Virtual and Augmented Realities in an Outdoor Application,” Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE and ACM International Workshop on Augmented Reality (1999) (Ex. 1004). 4 US Patent No. 6,361,438 B1 issued Mar. 26, 2002 (Ex. 1006). 5 US Patent No. 6,951,515 B2 issued Oct. 4, 2005 (Ex. 1005). 6 US Publ. No. 2004/0002843 A1 published Jan. 1, 2004 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 01/42809 A2 published June 14, 2001 (Ex. 1008). and/or developing computer systems/software involving graphical virtual and/or augmented reality. A person could also have qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art with some combination of (1) more formal education (such as a master’s of science degree) and less technical experience, or (2) less formal education and more technical or professional experience. (EX1002, ¶¶21-25.) Pet. 5–6. Patent Owner, at this stage, does not challenge Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill. See generally, Prelim. Resp. As Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“persuasive for several reasons. The claim does not recite “a defined physical playfield.” Rather, the claim recites “a physical playfield.” Ex. 1001, 21:6– 7; 22:26–27. The Specification’s discussions of “playfield” cited by Patent Owner use non-limiting language such as “for example” and “may” in describing the playfield. Id. at 2:32–36, 2:55–61, 3:14–16, 5:63–65, 6:30– 32, 8:30–44, 9:4–9, 19:60–20:22, 22:5–6. The disclosed examples of “a physical playfield” include “the physical world, a physical environment, or a defined physical playfield” (Ex. 1001, 1:51–53), which indicates that applicant intended “a physical playfield” as claimed to encompass more than a defined, or “bounded” physical playfield. This indication is consistent with the Specification’s disclosure that “the game world corresponds to an actual area of the physical world (such as the planet Earth or New York City).” Ex. 1001, 10:58–61. Thus, in one disclosed embodiment, the physical playfield is the entire (unbounded) world. We are persuaded that the Specification’s descriptions of various embodiments with defined playfields and undefined playfields support construing the scope of a “physical playfield” as encompassing defined boundaries, or a “bounded” playfield, as well as a “physical playfield” with undefined boundaries, or an “unbounded” playfield. Limiting the claim term to only “bounded” play spaces would read out broader embodiments from the claim scope. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that interpreting a claim to exclude an embodiment disclosed in the written description “is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.”). We, therefore, agree at this juncture with Petitioner’s claim construction analysis, and note that the alleged goal of improving the safety in virtual reality gaming does not support Patent Owner’s construction. Paper 10, 2 (Petitioner arguing that by describing an augmented reality system where a user can view the physical surroundings, a “bounded” physical playfield is not necessary). Further, we find unpersuasive, at this juncture, Patent Owner’s arguments related to embodiments of how the information about the playfield is captured and stored to construct the playfield and perform scaling. Prelim. Resp. 7−13. As Petitioner notes, and we agree, none of these features are recited in the independent claims. Paper 10, 2. And, to the extent there is a distinction between being “on” or “off” the “physical playfield” as Patent Owner argues, the claim language requires no such determination or detection.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Instituted
“physical playfield” as properly construed. Prelim. Resp. 30. As discussed in our claim construction above, we are not persuaded that the claim term “physical playfield” is limited to a bounded physical play space. However, even under the Patent Owner’s proposed narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that the combination teaches a bounded physical play space. Jaszlics discloses that its system creates virtual elements in theme parks and entertainment-oriented environments. Ex. 1003, 2:14–16, 2:67– 3:1; see id. at 18:48–55. We are sufficiently persuaded that a theme park is a bounded physical play space. In addition, Jaszlics discloses training armored vehicle crews by using both virtual vehicles and actual vehicles moving over real terrain. Ex. 1003, 1:38–60. We are sufficiently persuaded that a skilled artisan would have envisioned that such training occurs on a military base, which is bounded.8 Jaszlics further discloses that its training field includes boundary markers. Ex. 1003, Fig. 15, 10:1–9. We are sufficiently persuaded that the tank training field of Jaszlics, which has boundary markers and is located on a military base, is a bounded physical play space. Therefore, even under Patent Owner’s narrower construction, we are sufficiently persuaded that a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that a user would have played at least some of the video games provided by the combined system of Jaszlics and Piekarski in a bounded physical play space such as a theme park or a military base. slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,585,476 - Google LLC v. Metarail, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-01270 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Google’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that Belanger-Halevy teaches limitation [1C] of claims 1–26.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. ANALYSIS A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, a reply or sur-reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party challenging a decision bears the burden of showing the decision should be modified. Id. We address Petitioner’s rehearing arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“[m]issing, however, from Halevy’s disclosure is any teaching or suggestion that a ‘plurality of computer-readable field identifiers’ are mapped ‘to one another’ as required by claim 1.” Dec. 22. We discussed and quoted extensively from Petitioner’s expert declaration of Dr. Fox and Patent Owner’s expert declaration of Dr. Malek. Id. at 22–26 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 104; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69, 71). In reviewing the parties’ submissions, we found that: Halevy’s disclosures are consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s testimony that Halevy does not teach mapping fields to one another or mapping of fields to one another through SO-properties. For example, as described, in Figure 6 and Halevy as a whole, Halevy does not teach or suggest mapping or linking different keywords to one another, rather the keywords are mapped to SO-properties. slip op. at 5
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Dr. Fox states that “Halevy’s disclosure of a form database in which corresponding fields from different forms on different websites map to the same SO-properties would have been recognized by a POSA as what the ’378 patent refers to as a universal variable map.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 108 (citing Ex. 1001, 17:42–46). Based on this conclusory opinion, Dr. Fox reasons that Halevy’s form database is a “universal variable map” that must also link computer-readable field identifiers (including parameter names) from multiple different websites to each other in the form database, because the field identifiers are mapped to the same SO-properties associated with an SO-class. Id. We observe first that Dr. Fox’s conclusion is not supported by the cited portions of the ’378 patent. In column 17, lines 42–46, the ’378 patent explains that fields or variables may be part of forms and variations of these data fields or variables “may include a source form, a destination form, a single source to many destination form, many sources to one destination form, cascading forms (e.g., a first form links to a second form which links to a third form, etc.) and so on.” Ex. 1001, 17:42–46. While this portion of the ’378 patent indicates that forms may include variations on fields or variables, it does not describe any linking or mapping of variables to one another. Ex. 2001 ¶ 76 (“[T]hat portion of the specification does not have anything to do with the definition of a “universal variable map.” Rather, it merely discusses different types of variables and fields that might appear in different types of forms.”). Dec. 28–29. We again referred to the disclosure of the ’378 patent to address evidence in the Petition relied upon by Dr. Fox to support Petitioner’s position. Id. We credited Dr. Malek’s testimony over Dr. Fox’s testimony because Dr. Malek underlined the distinctions between the asserted Belanger-Halevy prior art combination and limitation [1C]. Dec. 28–31. In short, any confusion applying the prior art Belanger-Halevy references to the claim limitation is rooted in the Petition. The Board denied the Petition because the Petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing that Belanger-Halevy discloses or teaches limitation [1C] of the ’378 patent.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Finally, with regard to the Reply and Sur-Reply submitted by the parties (Req. 9), we note that our Decision on Institution reviewed the parties’ discussion of claim construction, but ultimately determined that “[b]ased on our review of the preliminary record, we do not need to construe any terms expressly to reach our decision.” Dec. 11. Thus, we disagree with Petitioner that we misconstrued the mapping limitation where we did not find it necessary to construe any claim term for the purposes of our institution decision because we determined the Petition deficient for failing to meet our threshold requirements as discussed above and in detail in the Decision on Institution. See Req. 1–11.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 9,633,378 - Ceva Santé Animale S.A. / Egg-Chick Automated Technologies S.A.S et al. v. Targan, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00595 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted §103 grounds; Petitioner did not show claims 16–18 unpatentable because the angled-conveyor combination lacked a supported rationale.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us, including the ’124 patent, the Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao, and Goodwin references, and the background and qualifications of both sides expert witnesses that reflect the knowledge and experience of a POSITA, including knowledge of systems for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting. Patent Owner’s proposed skill level overlaps with Petitioner’s proposed skill level, and any differences would not alter the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed skill level with two modifications. A POSITA also could have a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science or similar discipline, and a POSITA would be familiar with techniques for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting, such as visual and/or anatomical characteristics of a chick.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Therefore, we find that Applicant distinguished Tao from “an unrestrained chick” because in Tao’s automated system a chick is restrained—the chick is held in place—by a retainer unit on a moving platform, whereas in Applicant’s claimed system a chick is not held in place on a moving platform. We further conclude that Applicant’s reason for distinguishing the claimed invention over Tao informs the claim construction even if the “prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal . . . .” Personalized Media, 952 F.3d at 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In view of the ’124 patent claims, specification, and prosecution history, we determine “an unrestrained chick” is a chick not held in place on the moving platform and free to open its wings.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“For the reasons given below, we find the Petition has established that Gershman discloses and teaches “a moving platform to support an unrestrained chick of a particular breed” by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to determine a characteristic [of the chick] . . . [that] manifests in one of two or more possible states, e.g., sex (male vs. female), health (healthy vs. unhealthy), genetic mutation (present vs. not present).” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1004, 3). The recitation of a generic “database of images” does not distinguish limitation [1.4] from the asserted combination of Gershman-Pierre, particularly in view of Pierre’s disclosure of “a computerized processing process is implemented in order to compare the captured images to reference images,” as asserted in the Petition. Ex. 1004, 3 (emphasis added); see Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 2–5; Ex. 1004, 3, 5). Thus, we find that storage of Pierre’s reference images of male and female wing feathers in a database used for comparison in Gershman’s computerized digital chick image processing system would have been obvious to a POSITA and satisfies limitation [1.4].19 We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious and well within the skill level of a POSITA—someone with a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural, industrial, or electrical engineering and two years of experience in industrial poultry sexing and/or image processing (Resp. 20)—to store reference images as taught by Pierre in a “computerized processing” database. The rationale argued by Petitioner, to organize the collection of reference images for comparison to determine whether the characteristic of interest was present, finds direct support in Gershman and Pierre. Both references disclose comparing digital images of a chick’s wing feathers to reference data (Gershman) or reference images (Pierre) of male and female chick wing patterns. Pet. 23–24; Reply 12–13. Storing digital reference images in a database for comparison to captured digital images is, moreover, a basic and straightforward task in any computerized image processing” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,806,124 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,806,124 - Google LLC v. Brodti Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2025-00472 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10, and 19 are obvious over Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . 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). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Considering the subject matter of the ’898 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan (Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 9–12), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Petitioner submits that all terms in the Challenged Claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning in this proceeding, and that no specific construction of any claim term is required to resolve this case. Pet. 6 (“Petitioner does not believe express claim construction is necessary to resolve this Petition.”). Patent Owner has not submitted a preliminary response, and thus does not propose any terms for construction at this stage. In determining that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing unpatentability of at least one Challenged Claim, we need not and do not construe expressly any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner argues the skilled artisan would have had various rational reasons for combining the teachings of these four references, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See, e.g., Pet. 18–21 (discussing reasons to combine Nicholas and Laidlaw and expectation of success in doing so), 33–37 (discussing reasons to combine Nicholas and Mayadas and expectation of success in doing so), 44–45 (discussing reasons to combine Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error and expectation of success in doing so). Based on the record before us, we find Petitioner sufficiently shows that the combination of Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error would have taught or at least fairly suggested to the skilled artisan the limitations of claim 1.4 Thus, for the reasons stated in the Petition (Pet. 8–51), we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that independent claim 1 would have been unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,416,898 - Apple Inc. v. DH International Ltd.InstitutedPTAB · Jun 25, 2025 · IPR2025-00172 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all petition grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10–12, and 19 are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’294 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’294 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownOther
“II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’294 Patent (“POSITA”) would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or in a similar discipline with at least two years of experience with wireless communication devices and networks. More education can substitute for practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 34). Patent Owner states that it “agrees with Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 26–29).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Both parties rely on the language of claim 1 and the ’294 patent specification to support their respective constructions, and they emphasize that a user’s selective triggering of the control device does not issue different activation commands or control which data conveyance operation is used. Claim 1 recites an “invariable activation command” as a command that is “issued when said control device is selectively triggered by the user.” selectively trigger a control device “via one of a button, a keypad, a tactile screen, and a biometric parameter detector,” e.g., by entering a PIN that is authenticated, in order for an invariable activation command to be issued. Id. at 8:43–50, 10:26–29, 19:3–5. The claimed function of an invariable activation command is to “initiate[]” either a “first data conveyance operation” or a “second data conveyance operation” depending on whether “said switching element is in said first state” or “in said second state.” As explained above, the state of the switching element depends on whether or not an “activation cue” has been received by a “cue receiver.” The ’294 patent specification confirms the operation. Id. at 10:26–36, 15:14–28. The parties joust over the proper terminology for characterizing an “invariable” activation command, but they appear to agree on how the claimed cell phone and method work. The ’294 patent specification makes clear that the activation command is “invariable” in the sense that whenever a user selectively triggers the control device on the cell phone, for example by pressing a button on a keypad, the same command is issued to initiate a data conveyance operation regardless of the “state” of the “switching element” (i.e., in a “first state” or “second state”). The user cannot select or issue different activation commands. The selection of which of the two possible data conveyance operations will be initiated by selectively triggering the control device depends not on the activation command—it is always the same—but on whether the switching element has received an activation cue (“first state”) or not (“second state”). The ’294 patent neatly summarizes that “[t]he same invariable activation command will thus be issued upon [the] control device being triggered, and it is the state of [the]” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The ’294 patent claims and specification make clear that the switching element switches between a “first state” and a “second state” depending on whether or not an activation cue is received. Ex. 1001, 9:28–41, 14:53–59. The state of the switch, in turn, “allow[s] data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the claim limitation is recited as a “data conveyance switching element,” not a “data switch,” because the switching element allows the device to switch between alternate operations for conveying data from the cellular phone to an external data exchange device. Id. Patent Owner’s proposed construction “conflicts with the express disclosure of the ’294 Patent.” See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (The “specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’”) (citation omitted). On the present record, we determine that no further construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute a trial in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,022,294 - PTAB · Jun 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00351 · APJ Beth Z Shaw · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–26 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“A district court stay of the litigation pending resolution of the PTAB trial allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts.” Fintiv Order 6. That is the case here. Thus, the first Fintiv factor strongly weighs against exercising the authority to deny institution. Id. Under the second Fintiv factor, the proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution because there is no trial date scheduled. Id. at 9; see Ex. 1031, 3. slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To institute an inter partes review, we must determine “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). The Board, however, has discretion to deny a petition even when a petitioner meets that threshold. Id.; see, e.g., Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”). For the reasons that follow, we grant institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelOther
“have a bachelor’s or equivalent degree in computer science or a related field and at least 2 years of experience in multimedia processing or delivery using internet protocols.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner further states that “a person with less formal education but more experience, or more formal education but less experience, could have also met the relevant standard for a POSITA.” Id. Patent Owner submits a similar definition (see Prelim. Resp. 13–14), but states that a POSITA “would understand that . . . the subject of the patent is a software-based solution to broadcasting multimedia streams, and the skillset and expertise in hardware-based systems would not make one knowledgeable about software-based systems.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We determine that no express finding is necessary, on the present record, and that the level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). The difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA’s work experience does not change our analysis or conclusions based on the present record. Should Patent Owner dispute Petitioner’s definition during trial, we encourage Patent Owner to explain how a software-focused definition would affect any obviousness analysis in our final written decision.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“Claim 1 does not limit the “caching unit” in any way. With this in mind, we preliminarily agree that Farber discloses the subject matter of limitation 1a sufficiently to meet Petitioner’s burden on institution. b.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,140,441 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00038 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7, 10–13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“We do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. The disputed claim language merely requires that the display on the first or second screen is different in each image capture mode. Consistent with the claim language, the ’842 Patent discloses numerous examples of image capture modes in which a display on the first or second screen is different. See e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 12, 14A–14B, 15A–B, 16A–B, 20. Patent Owner’s construction is narrower than the claim language and incorrectly adds a requirement for a different display on the first screen between image capture modes or a different display on the second screen between image capture modes. See also Prelim. Resp. 16–17 (arguing that the claim requires the same screen to present different displays in different image capture modes). Patent Owner’s citations to the ’842 Patent are directed to an embodiment disclosing a preview image 1108 on first display 1200 that is in the portrait orientation in Figure 12 that, upon rotation of device 100, changes to preview image 1108 in landscape orientation 2004. See Ex. 1001, 35:65–36:2, 36:32–37:6; Figs. 12, 20, 21. Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.3d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. As demonstrated in the analysis below, at this stage of the proceeding, we need not explicitly construe “screen,” display,” “wherein in each image capture mode a display on the first or second screen is different,” or any other claim term or phrase. See, e.g., Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 8
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Because Chin specifies that the preview is shown on one screen or the other, and not on both screens in both modes, it is at least suggested and would have been obvious to a POSITA that the display on each of the screens changes between modes. Indeed, a POSITA would have understood that the screen not described as showing the preview would either be on or off. . . . And a POSITA would have been motivated to turn off (disable) that other screen, as the screen would not be facing the user and doing so would save power and avoid inadvertent inputs on the other touch screen during the image capture process. . . . Turning off power to one screen in a multi-screen device was a known design option and well within the ability of a POSITA. Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 257, 258).” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,836,842 - PTAB · May 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00039 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 11–14, and 16 over Aono under § 103, despite finding the showing for claims 11–14 and 16 insufficient.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“At this stage of the proceeding, we determine Petitioner shows sufficiently for the purpose of institution that the preamble and foregoing limitations of claim 1 are satisfied by the teachings of Aono. For the purpose of institution and based on the record before us, Petitioner establishes sufficiently that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Aono. Accordingly, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Petitioner asserts that Aono discloses, suggests, or would have rendered obvious “presenting a first display for the image capture function based on a physical device state, a display mode and a device orientation” based on Aono’s disclosure of determining whether device 1 is closed, fully opened or partially opened (in steps S140, S160), whether device 1 is configured to display an image on one screen, more than one screen, or enlarged across one or more screens (steps S142, S145, S146, S149, S150, S161, S164, S165, S168, S169), and whether the device is in portrait or landscape orientation. See Pet. 27–40 (reproducing Ex. 1004, Fig. 1 (with Petitioner’s annotations added), Fig. 2 (with Petitioner’s annotations added), Fig. 60 (with Petitioner’s annotations added), Fig. 61 (with Petitioner annotations added), Figs. 26, 27, 37, 41; citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–106; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 40, 143–145, 148–154, 203, 208, 225–227, 231–235, 272–288, 385– 417).4 Petitioner contends that Aono discloses, suggests, or would have rendered obvious “the physical device state at least including open, closed[,] easel[,] or modified easel,5 the display mode at least including portrait single, portrait dual, landscape single, landscape dual, portrait max[,] or landscape max,” based on Aono’s disclosure of digital assistant 1 that can be in a terminal opened state 4 Petitioner also asserts “[t]o the extent that it is deemed that the disclosures discussed with respect to this limitation relate to different embodiments of Aono, although such an interpretation would be wrong, a POSITA nonetheless at minimum would have found it obvious to combine different disclosures of Aono in the manner described above. Pet. 39; see Pet. 39–40. 5 Petitioner also asserts “[t]o the extent [Patent Owner] contends, incorrectly, that Aono does not disclose any one or more of the listed “physical device states,” at minimum Aono suggests and would have rendered obvious to a POSITA a device that can be configured in these states.” Pet. 45; see Pet. 45–46.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“construction standard as that applied in federal courts in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which is generally referred to as the Phillips standard. See 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’589 Patent has a filing date prior to the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA version of § 103. 2 US 2012/0139815 A1, published June 7, 2012, filed July 12, 2011 (Ex. 1004). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under the Phillips standard, “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Petitioner points out the express definitions for the terms “screen” and “display” set forth in the ’589 Patent. See Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:64–65, 3:29–30; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–43). As demonstrated in the analysis below, at this stage of the proceeding, we need not explicitly construe “screen,” display,” or any other claim term or phrase. See, e.g., Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . (‘POSITA’) would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus at least two years of work or post-graduate experience in image capture, image processing, image display, user interfaces, or a related field. Pet. 16. Petitioner also offers that “[a]dditional education could offset a lesser amount of experience and vice versa.” Id. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’589 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,146,589
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.