- Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCNo claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00708 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 were not shown unpatentable over Kelly or Walker and Schneier.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). In assessing 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) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. Based on the testimony of Mr. Crevelt, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or computer engineering, with at least three years of experience in game development. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62–65). Additional experience could substitute for less education, and additional education could likewise substitute for less experience. Id. We determine that the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted above is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’336 patent Specification and the asserted prior art references, based on our review of the record. Patent Owner states that “[f]or the purposes of this response, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue,” and “this POR and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” PO Resp. 8. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’336 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case. See id. slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date awardedDecided for patent owner
“b) Walker Priority Date Under Dynamic Drinkware, the Petitioner is required to show that “the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application.” In re Riggs, 131 F.4th 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Thus, Petitioner must show that (1) at least one claim of Walker is supported by its provisional (U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/378,289 (the “’289PROV”) and (2) the specific subject matter relied upon as prior art is supported by the ’289PROV. Id. Petitioner does provide a detailed explanation about how the ’289PROV supports claim 1 of Walker. See Reply 6–12. However, as Patent Owner argues, Petitioner fails to show that the ’298PROV provides support for the specific subject matter relied on in Walker. See Sur-Reply 3–8. Petitioner only explains how the ’298PROV discloses “predetermined criteria” but does not provide any other explanation for how the other subject matter relied on in Walker is supported by the ’298PROV. Thus, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that Walker is entitled a priority date before May 1, 2003. See Riggs, 131 F.3d at 1384 (noting while “a prior art patent or published application cannot be accorded the benefit of its provisional application’s filing date absent a showing that the provisional application provides support for the claims of the patent or published application,” the challenger must also show that “the specific portions of the patent specification identified and relied on” to demonstrate purported invalidity have written description support).” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches limitation 1[f]. As Patent Owner persuasively argues, “the game play events” of limitation 1[f] refers to “game play events” in limitation 1[d], but Petitioner does not map “the game play events” identified in limitation 1[d] to limitation 1[f]. In its Reply, Petitioner does not dispute Patent Owner’s assertion, but merely reiterates its arguments from the Petition. See Reply 23–24, 26. However, none of these arguments or evidence demonstrates that the “game play events” in limitation 1[f] are same the “game play events” that are allegedly stored in limitation 1[d]. Even if we accept Petitioner’s contention that it was not identifying button presses, but rather includes “game states and game events in the game process,” Petitioner provides no evidence or even arguments that what it has identified here relates to what it has identified for limitation 1[f]. See Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1005, 25:23–24, 32:27–33, 40:33–45, 56:49–51). For these reasons, Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Kelly teaches or suggests limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kelly. 2. Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 Claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 all depend from claim 1. See PO Resp. 16 (explaining that the arguments for independent claim 1 also apply to the dependent claims inherent the deficiencies asserted with respect to the independent claims). We find Patent Owner’s arguments availing, as explained above. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 12, 13, 18–20, 22, 24–26, 29, 42, 44–47, and 50 would have been obvious over Kelly.” slip op. at 40
Patent outcomesUS 8,529,336 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,529,336 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2025-00260 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged original claims unpatentable as obvious and denied the contingent motion to amend substitute claims 30–49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Further, an assertion of obviousness “cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418; In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a finding of a motivation to combine “must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation’”).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“7. Summary As discussed above, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show a” slip op. at 35
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied
“Motion to Amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121 for claims 30 and 32–49. We further find that Patent Owner has not met the statutory and regulatory requirements for proposed claim 31. Accordingly, we address below whether any of the proposed substitute claims have been shown to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 86
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateDenied
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2025-00260 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–14, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 unpatentable as obvious and granted the motion to amend for substitute claims 30–49.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“E. Credibility of Dr. Doolittle Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Doolittle’s testimony because, “[o]n cross examination, Prof. Doolittle repeatedly contradicted himself, dodged questions, and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions.” PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner raises two major complaints about Dr. Doolittle. First, Patent Owner argues that he took inconsistent positions by asserting in these IPR proceedings that the claims were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning, while in the parallel district court proceeding, asserting that certain claim terms were indefinite. Id. at 26–28. Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Doolittle “repeatedly dodged questions and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions,” and that “[d]uring cross examination Patent Owner was forced to object to Prof. Doolittle’s nonresponsive answers no less than eighteen times.” Id. at 28. We strongly disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Doolittle’s testimony. We have reviewed the entirety of both of Dr. Doolittle’s depositions. We are impressed with his forthrightness, candor, and good humor in the face of Patent Owner’s counsel’s aggressive questioning. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we find that his testimony was well-reasoned, forthright, honest, and entitled to significant weight. Dr. Doolittle explained the different claim construction positions We also strongly disagree that Dr. Doolittle’s answers were nonresponsive or “evasive” as Patent Owner argues. Patent Owner’s numerous attempts to “strike” portions of his testimony belie Dr. Doolittle’s efforts to honestly and in good faith respond to Patent Owner’s counsel’s questions. Ex. 2025, 22:10–23:15, 25:9–26:14, 30:14–22, 40:3-9, 58:12–59:1, 60:18–61:13, 65:1–10, 83:15–84:16, 92:15–95:20, 96:18–99:9, 102:22–106:16, 135:3–136:22. An answer is not “non-responsive” simply because it does not conform to the conclusion you want or undermines the logic underlying your questioning. Dr. Doolittle explained his answers and addressed the issues Patent Owner asked about. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to give Dr. Doolittle’s testimony no weight. Instead, we assess Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on a case-by-case basis as discussed below.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted ground of unpatentability in view of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”). In assessing 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) (quoting Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d Relying on the declaration testimony of its expert, Dr. Doolittle, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan for the ’678 patent “would have had an undergraduate degree (i.e., B.S., B.S.E. or the equivalent) in electrical engineering, materials science, physics, or a similar discipline” and “would also have one to two years of experience in the field of LED packaging design.” Pet. 5–6. Petitioner additionally contends that “[m]ore education could substitute for experience, and vice versa.” Id. Petitioner further contends that “[t]his person would have been capable of understanding and applying the teachings of the ’678 patent and the prior-art references discussed herein,” and “[m]oreover, the prior art reflects the level of skill at the time of the claimed invention.” Id. (citing Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 38–42). Patent Owner states that “solely for the purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner and its technical expert employ the same level of skill in the art as Petitioners.” PO Resp. 24–25. Thus, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’678 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our obviousness analysis below.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Basin-2005, Shimizu, and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 with a reasonable expectation of success. 4. Summary We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 (Pet. 19–53), and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 teach the limitations of those claims, and that there would have been a motivation to combine the references in the manner suggested with a reasonable considerations does not outweigh the strong showing of obviousness. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 would have been obvious over Basin-2007 and Basin-2005.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“1. Nexus In order for secondary considerations to be awarded “substantial” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting And Ledvance LLC / Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting, Elong International USA Inc., And Xiamen Longstar Lighting Co. Ltd v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 31, 2026 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held all challenged original claims unpatentable as obvious and granted the contingent motion to amend for substitute claims 30 and 32–49; substitute claim 31 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“E. Credibility of Dr. Doolittle Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Doolittle’s testimony because, “[o]n cross examination, Prof. Doolittle repeatedly contradicted himself, dodged questions, and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions.” PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner raises two major complaints about Dr. Doolittle. First, Patent Owner argues that he took inconsistent positions by asserting in these IPR proceedings that the claims were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning, while in the parallel district court proceeding, asserting that certain claim terms were indefinite. Id. at 26–28. Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Doolittle “repeatedly dodged questions and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions,” and that “[d]uring cross examination Patent Owner was forced to object to Prof. Doolittle’s nonresponsive answers no less than eighteen times.” Id. at 28. We strongly disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Doolittle’s testimony. We have reviewed the entirety of both of Dr. Doolittle’s depositions. We are impressed with his forthrightness, candor, and good humor in the face of Patent Owner’s counsel’s aggressive questioning. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we find that his testimony was well-reasoned, forthright, honest, and entitled to significant weight. Dr. Doolittle explained the different claim construction positions We also strongly disagree that Dr. Doolittle’s answers were nonresponsive or “evasive” as Patent Owner argues. Patent Owner’s numerous attempts to “strike” portions of his testimony belie Dr. Doolittle’s efforts to honestly and in good faith respond to Patent Owner’s counsel’s questions. Ex. 2025, 22:10–23:15, 25:9–26:14, 30:14–22, 40:3-9, 58:12–59:1, 60:18–61:13, 65:1–10, 83:15–84:16, 92:15–95:20, 96:18–99:9, 102:22–106:16, 135:3–136:22. An answer is not “non-responsive” simply because it does not conform to the conclusion you want or undermines the logic underlying your questioning. Dr. Doolittle explained his answers and addressed the issues Patent Owner asked about. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to give Dr. Doolittle’s testimony no weight. Instead, we assess Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on a case-by-case basis as discussed below.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted ground of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Basin-2005, Shimizu, and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 with a reasonable expectation of success. 4. Summary We have reviewed Petitioner’s contentions regarding claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 (Pet. 19–53), and find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 teach the limitations of those claims, and that there would have been a motivation to combine the references in the manner suggested with a reasonable considerations does not outweigh the strong showing of obviousness. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 9, 10, 16–21, and 25 would have been obvious over Basin-2007 and Basin-2005.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“1. Nexus In order for secondary considerations to be awarded “substantial” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Savant Technologies LLC D/B/A GE Lighting / Ledvance LLC et al. v. Feit Electric Company, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2026 · IPR2024-01357 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16–21, 25, 26, and 29 are unpatentable; substitute claims 30–49 were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted ground of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“E. Credibility of Dr. Doolittle Patent Owner argues that we should give no weight to Dr. Doolittle’s testimony because, “[o]n cross examination, Prof. Doolittle repeatedly contradicted himself, dodged questions, and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions.” PO Resp. 25. Patent Owner raises two major complaints about Dr. Doolittle. First, Patent Owner argues that he took inconsistent positions by asserting in these IPR proceedings that the claims were entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning, while in the parallel district court proceeding, asserting that certain claim terms were indefinite. Id. at 26–28. Second, Patent Owner argues that Dr. Doolittle “repeatedly dodged questions and tried to shoehorn new and nonresponsive opinions into his answers to Patent Owner’s questions,” and that “[d]uring cross examination Patent Owner was forced to object to Prof. Doolittle’s nonresponsive answers no less than eighteen times.” Id. at 28. We strongly disagree with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Doolittle’s testimony. We have reviewed the entirety of both of Dr. Doolittle’s depositions. We are impressed with his forthrightness, candor, and good humor in the face of Patent Owner’s counsel’s aggressive questioning. Contrary to Patent Owner’s assertions, we find that his testimony was well-reasoned, forthright, honest, and entitled to significant weight. Dr. Doolittle explained the different claim construction positions We also strongly disagree that Dr. Doolittle’s answers were nonresponsive or “evasive” as Patent Owner argues. Patent Owner’s numerous attempts to “strike” portions of his testimony belie Dr. Doolittle’s efforts to honestly and in good faith respond to Patent Owner’s counsel’s questions. Ex. 2025, 22:10–23:15, 25:9–26:14, 30:14–22, 40:3-9, 58:12–59:1, 60:18–61:13, 65:1–10, 83:15–84:16, 92:15–95:20, 96:18–99:9, 102:22–106:16, 135:3–136:22. An answer is not “non-responsive” simply because it does not conform to the conclusion you want or undermines the logic underlying your questioning. Dr. Doolittle explained his answers and addressed the issues Patent Owner asked about. Accordingly, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to give Dr. Doolittle’s testimony no weight. Instead, we assess Dr. Doolittle’s testimony on a case-by-case basis as discussed below.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“lower wavelength might offer, there were other drawbacks that a person of ordinary skill would have to balance. But “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Indeed, Petitioner has shown several references—including, Basin-2005, Shimizu, and Stokes—that made this tradeoff. Moreover, “[o]bviousness does not require absolute predictability of success. . . . [A]ll that is required is a reasonable expectation of success.” In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903–04 (Fed. Cir. 1988). We find that the prior art of record demonstrates that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have such an expectation in making the combination of Basin-2007 and Basin-2005. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there would have been motivation to combine Basin-2007 and Basin-2005 with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsDecided for petitioner
“7. Summary As discussed above, we find that Patent Owner has failed to show a” slip op. at 35
Patent outcomesUS 8,604,678 unpatentable§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,604,678 - Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Remand
On Director remand, the Board determined claims 1–15 unpatentable under § 103, including claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“all Challenged Claims unpatentable and denying Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Paper 47 (“Original Final Decision”). Subsequently, Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review and Petitioner filed an authorized Response thereto. Papers 48, 49. On July 29, 2026, the Director granted review, vacated-in-part the Original Final Decision, and remanded the case to the Board. Paper 50. In particular, the Director directed the Board “to consider Patent Owner’s arguments as to the webserver limitation in deciding whether Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable under Petitioner’s Ground 1B.” Id. at 4. We do so in this Final Written Decision on Remand (“Remand Decision”). See infra § III.E (Ground 1B). For completeness, we repeat herein our analysis in the Original Final Decision for all other grounds.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction We construe claims “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b), including construing the claim in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In this context, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; see CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (There is “a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.”). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Petitioner contends that “[t]he claim terms of the ’218 [patent] should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” as understood by the relevant artisan. Pet. 6. Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan “would have understood a ‘socket’ to be a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server where first event information is provided to a [viewer client device] VCD.” Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶ 170). Petitioner argues that the relevant artisan also would have understood an “event socket,” in turn, to be “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to VCDs.” Id. Beyond such proposed plain meanings for “socket” and “event” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“(6) Conclusion as to Objective Indicia of Non- Obviousness For the foregoing reasons, although we have considered Patent Owner’s evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness, we accord it little weight, and find that it does not outweigh Petitioner’s strong countervailing evidence supporting a conclusion of obviousness.” slip op. at 53
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“engineer with substantial experience in Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols, including an understanding of relaytype and orchestrator-type webservers, would have considered the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole, including the webserver, to be obvious in light of the combined teachings of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. Based on the context discussed above, and for the reasons provided above, we determine that the answer is yes. See Fleming v. Cirrus Design Corp., 28 F.4th 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“That the proposed combination of [two references]—rather than one of the individual references—discloses the disputed claim limitations does not defeat the Board’s conclusion of obviousness. In this case, it is sufficient that [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to combine the prior art in a way such that the combination discloses the claim limitations.”).” slip op. at 78
Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218 - Rocket Media, LLC D/B/A Launch Labs v. Fullthrottle Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00148 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doughty and Van Boucq, and over Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in June 2021 would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field plus at least one year of experience working on computer networking, or (2) at least 3 years of experience working on computer networking, even without a formal degree.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proffered definition. PO Resp. 23. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’947 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case, but address certain claim construction arguments made by the parties in the analysis below. See id.; Inst. Dec. 11 (determining that “no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms”); PO Resp. 23 (agreeing that “no express constructions are necessary to resolve this IPR”). slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has shown that the combination of Doughty and Van Boucq accounts for these limitations. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 somehow excludes, what Patent Owner calls, the “Unique Identifier/Tracker Embodiment.” See PO Resp. 27, 31. Beginning with the language of the claims, the claims are silent as to where the “location data” recited in limitation 1[c] is stored. See Tr. 21:7– 16 (Patent Owner agreeing that “the stored location data does not actually have a required location at all” in the claim, and need not be stored in a database). Nor does Patent Owner direct us to any claim language that would specifically exclude “location data” stored on the user’s device. See Sur-reply 2–3. “The patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee clearly redefines the term (lexicography) or disavows claim scope (claim disavowal).” Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 159 F.4th 1, 8 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Patent Owner directs us to statements in the Specification, stating “[f]or example, the computing device may access a database or other storage location that maintains a mapping of unique identifier to a browser session, a user computing device, and/or location data.” Ex. 1001, 9:52–55; see also id. at 39:26–30 (same), 43:55– 59 (same). But none of those passages amounts to lexicography or disavowal of claim scope. Indeed, when read in their full context, these passages support a broad reading, not a narrow reading, of the claims. The full passage of the Specification states: The computing device may determine, at 406, whether there is a unique identifier that is associated with the user (e.g., the user computing device, the browser, and/or the browser session) stored on the computing device. For example, the script may inform the computing device that there is no unique identifier for the user computing device. The computing device may determine that there is no unique identifier associated with the user computing device when there is no location data stored for the user computing device. For example, the computing device may access a database or other storage location that maintains a mapping of unique identifier to a browser session, a user computing device, and/or location data. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine whether there is a unique identifier for associated with the user based on presence of a location tracker (e.g., cookie) installed in the browser application on the user computing device. Ex. 1001, 9:43–59. The passage above is full of language that indicates that the patentee did not intend to limit the claims to a single embodiment. Indeed, the specific portion of the passage cited by Patent Owner begins with “[f]or example” and further states “[a]dditionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine whether there is a unique identifier for associated with the user based on presence of a location tracker (e.g., cookie) installed in the browser application on the user computing device.” Id. at 9:52–59 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Specification states “[a]dditionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine the location data using the tracker installed in the browser application on the user computing device.” Id. at 10:2–5. The Specification also explains that the tracker may “maintain data related to the user and/or user computing device.” Id. at 12:62–63. Based on these disclosures, we find that the Specification supports a reading where the location data are stored in the user computing” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Doughty, based on Doughty’s own teachings regarding cookies and similar files, and would have recognized that the techniques of Van Boucq would have offered an efficient and commonly used way to determine whether the user already has been assigned a unique identifier. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 153. Patent Owner’s arguments about the precise contents of Van Boucq’s connection cookie attack Van Boucq individually and ignore the combination and modifications that Petitioner proposes. In the combination, Petitioner proposes incorporating the unique identifier from Doughty into Van Boucq’s connection cookie. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008, 16:59–17:33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 153). As for Patent Owner’s contention that “[n]othing in the record suggests that Van Boucq’s connection cookie could contain any information about either Doughty’s table 105 Profile ID or Doughty’s hashed email address,” PO Resp. 33, as Dr. Gottesman testifies, “[a] cookie is a small piece of data (text file).” Ex. 2012 ¶ 55. We fail to see why a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have any difficulty incorporating Doughty’s alphanumeric unique identifier into a text file. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 153, 166. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown a motivation to combine Doughty and Van Boucq for these limitations.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,556,947 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,556,947 - Aptiv Services US, LLC v. Microchip Technology, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 20, 2026 · IPR2024-00646 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable under § 103 over Al-Shyoukh, Ivanov, and Stanescu; the Board did not reach the alternative ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s proposal is most like Petitioner’s alternative proposal which would include a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience. However, Patent Owner does not provide a specific number of years of industry experience and Patent Owner would include mixed-signal IC design as an alternative to analog circuit design. We consider analog circuit design to be most pertinent to the problems and solution discussed in the ’074 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:44. In addition, we find credible Petitioner’s argument that an ordinarily skilled artisan with a bachelor’s degree would have had two years of experience, whereas Patent Owner’s proposal does not provide a specific number of years. Thus, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree and two years of experience in analog circuit design. Nevertheless, the outcome of our decision would be the same under either of the party’s proposals.” slip op. at 8
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Because neither party has argued that the district-court constructions should be modified or elaborated for this proceeding, and the constructions appear reasonable, we adopt these constructions for this decision. We also take judicial notice of the district court’s Memorandum supporting the claim construction order. Ex. 3001.9” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that “gm boosting” is the only gm enhancement referred to in the ’074 patent, that the ’074 patent uses the terms “gm enhanced” and “gm-boost” synonymously, and that Patent Owner has failed to point to any credible intrinsic evidence of this alleged distinction. Although, “[i]n the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the use of . . . different terms in the claims connotes different meanings, CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000), in this case there is evidence to the contrary. In particular, the ’074 patent never refers to “gm enhancement” as a function separate from “gm boosting.” Indeed, the transistors (368, 370, and 382) that Patent Owner identifies as performing the function of “gm enhancement” are disclosed as part of a “gm-boost stage.” Ex. 1001, 5:8–24. Patent Owner’s alleged separation of Figure 3B into distinct “gm boosting” and “gm enhancement” is not consistent with the intrinsic evidence and is based on the conclusory testimony of Dr. Taylor. Thus, based on the evidence of record, we disagree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction distinguishing the terms “gm enhanced” and “gm-boost” in claim 1. Rather, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded these terms to be synonymous. We need not otherwise construe these two terms to resolve the contested issues in this proceeding. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s argument persuasive that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to follow Ivanov’s teachings to include an enable/disable function in Al-Shyoukh’s biasing circuit to limit that circuit’s standby current for reasons of power-efficiency. Pet. 25–26; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 67–68. The evidence of record also suggests that an enable/disable function was well known in the art and that it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to add such a function to a biasing circuit, taking into consideration any known tradeoffs. Pet. Reply 17–18; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 60, 67–68; PO Resp. 13–14 (acknowledging that “any [person of ordinary skill in the art” would attest[ that] engineering is full of tradeoffs” and listing some of the known tradeoffs that “a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would need to consider”). We also disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, or other references teach away from adding an enable/disable function to Al-Shyoukh. Patent Owner has not pointed to anything in the prior art that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages investigation into the claimed invention. Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 849 F.3d at 1382.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,471,074 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,471,074 - Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01311 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 16–30 are unpatentable: claims 16–30 as obvious over Ellis and Spivey, claims 21, 22, 27, and 28 as anticipated by Herzog, and claims 25, 26, and 30 as obvious over Herzog and Ellis.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 12. Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of the relevant artisan because, based on the record, this proposal is most consistent with the ’218 patent and the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of both Dr. Wicker and Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–98). We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed plain meanings of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 32–33) are not disputed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 2, 12. In fact, by arguing that Spivey’s topic queues are neither “uniquely addressable” nor “communication endpoints,” Patent Owner appears to adopt Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning of “socket” as a “uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Id. As Patent Owner acknowledged during Oral Argument, “I don’t think there’s any dispute of what we mean by socket, a uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Tr. 73:10–12. Based on the foregoing, we construe each of “socket” and “event socket” to have its plain and ordinary meaning, where the relevant artisan would have understood “socket” to mean “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server,” and “event socket” to mean “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a viewer client device (VCD).” 2 We further address these terms below in Section III.D.3. 2 During Oral Argument, Patent Owner argued, for the first time, that the District Court’s construction of “event socket” “should be applied equally here.” Tr. 73:13–76:24 (referring to Ex. 1069). The Court adopted Petitioner’s (Defendant’s) proposed definition of “event socket” as “a socket dedicated to a particular event” (Ex. 1069, 11–15), although in its summary of constructions, labeled “event socket” as being “a socket dedicated to a single event” (i.e., “single” event versus “particular” event) (id. at 26). Regardless, in the context of this case and this Decision, we find no meaningful difference between these articulations and Petitioner’s plain” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“As Petitioner explained during Oral Argument, Ellis “relates to the ability for the clients and the server to communicate,” which can be any system that can “provide real-time sports,” but “doesn’t discuss whether it’s a push system or a pull system,” whereas Spivey, on the other hand, “expressly indicates that it is a push type of data system which reduces latency over prior art systems that utilize push technologies.” Tr. 15:13–19. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that, “[a]s explained by Dr. Wicker, . . . [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to implement real-time data delivery using Spivey’s data pushing technique to reduce latency.” Id. at 16:2–8. “[I]f a 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, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to “articulate why [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to make the necessary modifications and proposed combination.” PO Resp. 40–41. Here, Petitioner points out that its proposed combination would have been made to improve latency issues in Ellis’s system. Pet. 23–26. In particular, Spivey discloses that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data to the “subscribed connected client devices” substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., “with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”).” slip op. at 28
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia outweighedDecided for petitioner
“Considering the totality of the evidence, we find Patent Owner has not demonstrated that a long-felt but unresolved need existed for the claimed invention. See Apple v. Samsung, 839 F.3d at 1056. As Petitioner points out, although Patent Owner argues that there is a long-felt need for a system that “allows broadcasters to deliver synchronized, low-latency video and audio content” (PO Resp. 65), Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Ellis also discloses “a video streaming system that provided event information over a separate channel, which is not hard embedded in the video stream.” Pet. Reply 25. Further, as Petitioner points out in the context of “representative claim 12,” the claim “simply requires ‘receiv[ing] the first copy via a first video communication channel between at least one media source and the first client device,’” and “[i]n no way does that claim language relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 22. In fact, during Oral Argument, although Patent Owner argues that its invention is “the synchronization and the latency improvements through that one-to-many socket architecture,” Patent Owner conceded that the claims “could be broader than that.” Tr. 44:24–46:16. We find availing Petitioner’s argument that the “claim language” does not “relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 22. Petitioner argues that we should give “no weight” to Patent Owner’s alleged “evidence” of any long-felt but unresolved needs. Pet. Reply 22. In particular, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory statements that, prior to the claimed invention, “conventional video streaming systems” included “hard-embedded event information,” and that “[t]he claimed invention satisfied the long-felt need for an innovative system.” PO Resp. 64–65. Thus, considering the totality of the evidence, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has failed to establish that there was a long-felt but unresolved need for the claimed invention.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218 - Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01310 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 12–15 over Ellis and Spivey, and claims 1–11 over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog; the other grounds were not proven.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Relying on Dr. Wicker’s testimony, Petitioner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent, in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field or an equivalent number of years of working experience, and one to two years of experience in networking environments, including at least some experience with live-streaming network architecture.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76). Petitioner also states that “[a]dditional education or experience in related fields could compensate for deficits in the above qualifications.” Pet. 18. Patent Owner contends that the relevant artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with Internet video streaming, Internet communication, and related protocols.” PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 96). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of the relevant artisan because, based on the record, this proposal is most consistent with the ’218 patent and the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of both Dr. Wicker and Dr. Rubin (see Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 72–76; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 96–98). We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed plain meanings of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 26) are not disputed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 2, 12. In fact, by arguing that Spivey’s topic queues are neither “uniquely addressable” nor “communication endpoints,” Patent Owner appears to adopt Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning of “socket” as a “uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Id. As Patent Owner acknowledged during Oral Argument, “I don’t think there’s any dispute of what we mean by socket, a uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Tr. 73:10–12. Thus, we give each of “socket” and “event socket” its plain meaning, where the relevant artisan would have understood “socket” to mean “a uniquely addressable communication endpoint on a server,” and “event socket” to mean “a socket where information about one sporting event is provided to a viewer client device (VCD).” 4 We address such terms below in Section III.D.3. After considering the arguments and information presented during trial, we determine that we do not need to otherwise expressly construe any terms in order to resolve the dispute between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 15
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s contentions with Dr. Wicker’s supporting testimony persuasive. In particular, we find Petitioner’s reliance on Spivey for disclosing “event socket” is supported by Spivey’s disclosures that a topic queue’s address “may resemble a uniform resource locator (URL)” and that user interface 900 “allow[s] an operator 108 of a client device to view and select . . . topics available from a message queue server.” Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 82, 84, Fig. 9. In Spivey, the message flow begins “when message queue server . . . pushes data payloads to subscribers of the topics in [the] message.” See Ex. 1017 ¶ 134. As Petitioner explains, in Spivey, “the address for connecting a topic queue may resemble a URL, and client devices can select from a list of available topics and subscribe to those queues, after which the MQSD pushes the relevant data payloads to the subscribed devices.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 82–84, 134). As Petitioner explains, and as supported by Dr. Wicker’s testimony, Spivey’s “topic label may be . . . ‘gamecenter.nfl.ravensteelers,’ and client devices use these topic label text strings to connect and subscribe to the MQSD’s topic queues.” Pet. Reply 8 (citing Ex. 1001 ¶¶ 353–354). We find availing that, in Spivey, since the “client devices ‘request a live data connection’ by selecting or entering the address or connection information which ‘may resemble a uniform resource locator (URL),’” Spivey’s topic queues “are not only logically but also actually implemented as uniquely addressable communication endpoints.” Id. at 9 (citing Ex. 1064 ¶¶ 11–14). We find that Dr. Rubin’s testimony that the only potential “communication endpoint” in Spivey that is “uniquely addressable” is the live data access server (Ex. 2001 ¶ 233) merely addresses particular embodiments in Spivey. That is, Dr. Rubin does not address sufficiently Spivey’s teachings as a whole as understood from the perspective of the relevant artisan, which would include other embodiments. See Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1361 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“What a prior art reference discloses or teaches is determined from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art.”); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1041 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (noting that when evaluating claims for obviousness, “the prior art as a whole must be considered”). Dr. Rubin does not address Spivey’s disclosure that the system “may include” the LDAS (Ex. 1017 ¶ 38), but, as Petitioner points out, merely acknowledges that “there are examples in Spivey using the language [‘may’].” Pet. Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1063, 62:8–13). As Petitioner points out, in his deposition, Dr. Rubin acknowledges” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“As Petitioner explained during Oral Argument, Ellis “relates to the ability for the clients and the server to communicate,” which can be any system that can “provide real-time sports,” but “doesn’t discuss whether it’s a push system or a pull system,” whereas Spivey, on the other hand, “expressly indicates that it is a push type of data system which reduces latency over prior art systems that utilize push technologies.” Tr. 15:13–19. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that, “[a]s explained by Dr. Wicker, . . . [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to implement real-time data delivery using Spivey’s data pushing technique to reduce latency.” Id. at 16:2–8. “[I]f a 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, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to “articulate why [the relevant artisan] would have been motivated to make the necessary modifications and proposed combination.” PO Resp. 40–41. Here, Petitioner points out that its proposed combination would have been made to improve latency issues in Ellis’s system. Pet. 20–22. In particular, Spivey discloses that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data to the “subscribed connected client devices” substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., “with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”). We find Patent Owner’s arguments that Petitioner fails to “explain the modifications necessary to combine such teachings” are inconsistent with the evidence of record. PO Resp. 40–47. For example, Patent Owner’s argument that the proposed combination would be inoperable because the combination “does not include the LDAS” (id. at 43–44) is not consistent with the evidence of record that Spivey does not require the LDAS to serve as intermediary between the MQSD and the user equipment. See Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 38, 46. As discussed above, Spivey states that the system “may” include an LDAS (Ex. 1017 ¶ 38), supporting Petitioner’s contention that, in Spivey, the LDAS is “optional” wherein “the MQSD may be ‘accessible to clients over the network directly.’” Pet. Reply 3. As discussed above in Section III.D.3.a, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that Spivey’s MQSD may push data from topic queues to the subscribers of the topics corresponding to those topic queues, which indicates that “the MQSD can deliver data directly to clients without the necessity of an LDAS.” Id. (citing Ex. 1017 ¶ 46).” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 11,039,218 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,039,218
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.