• Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 1, 2026 · IPR2023-00042 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Remand

  Claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doo and Amira; claims 12–19 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted tissue properties were not shown in Amira.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “Federal Circuit. The court issued its decision in Medivis, Inc. v. Novarad Corp., No. 2024-1794, 2026 WL 587294 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2026) (“Medivis”) (Paper 40),1 affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, and remanding our Final Written Decision (Paper 35) for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed our “determination of no motivation to combine Doo and Amira” and remanded for further proceedings to evaluate whether claims 1–6 and 11–20 (“the Remanded Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,271 B2 (“the ’271 patent,” Ex. 1001) are unpatentable in view of Petitioner’s obviousness challenge over Doo and Amira. Medivis, slip op. at 9–10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We issue this Final Written Decision on Remand pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 144, 318 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 in an inter partes review involving Medivis, Inc. (“Petitioner”) and Novarad Corp. (“Patent Owner”). For the reasons discussed below, after considering the entirety of the record in light of the Federal Circuit’s directives in Medivis, we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–6, 11, and 20 are unpatentable; however, Petitioner has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 12–19 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, except that we excise part of Petitioner’s definition to produce the following modified version: 4 Throughout this decision, we eliminate the parties’ italicization of reference names from quotations without noting “emphasis omitted.” 5 Doo, WO 2015/164402 A1, published October 29, 2015 (Ex. 1008). 6 Excerpt of Amira 5 User’s Guide, title through Chapter 2 (Visual Imaging 2009) (Ex. 1005). engineering, or a related field with several years of experience in the design, development, and study of augmented reality devices and . . . familiarity with conventional medical imaging data and visualization of data for medical procedures . . . . Our edit removes the alternative of “working with a team including someone with such familiarity” because one’s role in a team may be tangential to their personal experience with medical imaging. Regardless, had we adopted Petitioner’s original definition, our decision would not have changed.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the term “3D slices” has no apparent connection to the phrase “direct volume rendering.” Patent Owner’s argument appears to be that DVR “requires an image of the entire anatomical volume that is neither feature-specific nor segmented, [which] would seemingly require that all inner layers be displayed.” Reply 4; see Sur-reply 6–10 (not disputing Petitioner’s characterization). But, as Petitioner notes, the specification directly undermines this by teaching “display [of] a slice of the 3D data instead of a volume of the 3D data.” See Reply 4 n.2 (quoting Ex. 1001, 5:34–35). In other words, to the extent DVR would depict an image of the entire anatomical volume, displaying 3D slices “instead of a volume of the 3D data” implies the opposite of DVR. Even if “3D slices” somehow implied DVR, Patent Owner’s position is still untenable. Claim 1 does not recite “3D slices.” Instead, claim 1 recites “3D data” and “inner layers.” Ex. 1001, 18:54–65. Patent Owner fails to clarify the relationship between “slices,” “3D data,” and “layers,” and its expert even admits that slices and layers are two different things. See PO Resp. 13; Ex. 1022, 32:7–16 (agreeing that the words “slice” and “layer” are not “synonyms”), cited in Reply 4. We also agree with Petitioner that dependent claim 3 distinguishes slices and layers by reciting “slices of the projected inner layer.” Reply 4 (quoting Ex. 1001, 19:3–10). Thus, even if 3D slices somehow implied DVR, the language of claim 1 does not support limiting the claim this way.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner

    “The determination of whether a document was publicly accessible “involves a case-by-case inquiry into the facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of the public.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Barry, 891 F.3d 1368, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For instance, courts routinely rely on the Wayback Machine to determine when a reference was first made available to the public. Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“District courts have taken judicial notice of the contents of webpages available through the Wayback Machine ‘as facts that can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.’”). We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that “Medivis cannot rely on additional prior art”—Exhibits 1023 and 1024—“that was submitted after its Petition to carry its burden without leave from the Board.” Sur-reply 4. As Patent Owner did not file a motion to exclude these exhibits, we decline Patent Owner’s invitation to disregard them. We also find Petitioner’s Reply argument proper because it directly responds to Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner did not prove the public accessibility of Amira. See Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. One World Techs., Inc., 944 F.3d, 919, 925 on issues previously raised.”). Petitioner’s Reply argument appropriately elaborates on the Petition’s contention that Amira was publicly accessible. Patent Owner also does not dispute the substance of Petitioner’s evidence. For example, Patent Owner does not address the substance of Mr. Frank-White’s declaration. We find that this evidence, including Mr. Frank- White’s declaration testimony, persuasively supports the public availability of Amira as of the date shown in the Wayback Machine URL. See Ex. 1024.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,004,271 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,004,271
• Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. University Of RochesterSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01225 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1 and 3–7 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 8–12 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds did not establish asynchronous operation between domains.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “specification is the ‘single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,’ . . . and ‘is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims.’” Trs. of Columbia Univ. in City of New York v. Symantec Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). Although Patent Owner contends that the Specification disparages systems that impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequencies (PO Resp. 21), we find availing Petitioner’s contention that “[s]upport for Patent Owner’s construction is absent from the specification.” Pet. Reply 10. As Petitioner points out, Patent Owner’s claim construction “appears to be based on a single paragraph of the ’443 patent referring to preexisting ‘synchronization schemes [that] restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies of the clocks.” Id. That is, the only reference by Patent Owner to the Specification is that the Specification states that “Some synchronization schemes restrict the . . . relative frequencies of the clocks, thereby eliminating the need for hardware arbitration [27]. Unfortunately, these schemes impose significant restrictions on the possible choices of frequences.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:32–36). We agree with Petitioner that such disclosure in the Specification “does not describe how these synchronization schemes ‘restrict the phase relationship and relative frequencies’ with any specificity.’” Pet. the Specification that some schemes impose restrictions on the possible choices of frequency is not a disparagement of any system that has limited choices of frequency or would preclude the claims from covering such prior art techniques. Instead, as Petitioner points out, the Specification of the ’443 patent states “[t]he preferred embodiment uses four domains […] so that domains may vary somewhat in size and still be covered by a single clock.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 5:57–59). As Dr. Baker testified in support of Petitioner’s contention, “the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent relies on a single external master clock that distributes a signal to the local PLL of each domain.” See Ex. 1032 ¶ 9. Thus, although Patent Owner contends that clock signals generated based on a master clock cannot be interpreted to be generated independently of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains (PO Resp. 49), we agree with Petitioner that such claim construction would “exclude[] the preferred embodiment of the ’443 patent,” which is disfavored. Pet. Reply 11. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that “changeable independently” of the other domains does not require that the separate clocks in the plurality of domains be globally-asynchronous.” slip op. at 12

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner

    “As both parties recognize, (PO Resp. 5; Pet. Reply 12), “[actual] [r]eduction to practice in the United States requires that the invention be embodied in tangible form.” Scott v. Koyama, 281 F.3d 1243, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In particular, actual reduction to practice requires a showing of the invention in a physical or tangible form that shows every element. not sufficient. See Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, Patent Owner does not provide any evidence showing every element of the claims in physical or tangible form, as required, but rather contends that the Specification refers to the Paper, wherein the Paper stated that simulation using a software, SimpleScalar, was performed. PO Resp. 16. We are persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that the SimpleScalar simulation was not an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention. Pet. Reply 12. As Petitioner points out, claim 1, for example, is directed to a “microprocessor,” wherein “Patent Owner has presented no evidence and has not alleged that any physical microprocessor was ever produced or operated.” Id. at 13; see PO Resp. 15–17. And as Petitioner points out, “Patent Owner has produced no evidence of any physical prototype of the claimed microprocessor that could have validated the simulation.” Pet. Reply 13–14. We agree with Petitioner that, at most, such simulation “demonstrated feasibility for prototyping of a microprocessor,” but not a tangible form of the microprocessor itself as required for an actual reduction to practice. Id. at 14; see also Standard Mfg. Co. v. United States, 25 Cl. Ct. 1, 67 (1991) (“The feasibility of the optical alignment system may have been proven by the optical mock-up, but the optical mock-up was not a reduction to practice of the proposed MHU–145/M trailer.”).” slip op. at 36

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

    “Here, we find that Petitioner has not met its burden to prove that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  • BurdenMixed

    “of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that “the functional units of Georgiou operate asynchronously since they have different clocks.” Pet. 74 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 211–219). Specifically, although Petitioner relies on Georgiou for teaching different clocks, Petitioner’s conclusory statement that such application would operate asynchronously requires gapfilling. Id. As Patent Owner points out, Georgiou discloses a clocking architecture in which “all domain clocks are derived from a shared master clock through predetermined rational dividers.” PO Resp. 49. Petitioner concedes during the oral hearing that, in systems such as Georgiou, each domain clock is set a fraction of a master clock, and thus, the various domain clocks are “possibly” synchronous with each other. Tr. 59:4–14 (JUDGE DANG: . . . would being fractions of the master, wouldn’t they be synchronized with each other? MR UHR: They may be, . . . the answer is possibly.”) Thus, we find Petitioner’s contention that a POSITA would have recognized that the functional units of Georgiou operate “asynchronously” lacks sufficient support in the record. We find the testimony of Dr. Baker insufficient to support Petitioner’s position. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 53–56, 213, 215–219. In his declaration, Dr. Baker testified that he “provided several references . . . that explain operating domains asynchronous to one another while the domains operate synchronously.” Id. ¶¶ 215–219. However, although such references explain “globally asynchronous, local synchronous (GALS) systems” (id. ¶ 216), Dr. Baker does not explain why a POSITA “would have known that a functional unit of Georgiou also operates asynchronous with respect to at different frequencies.” Id. ¶ 217. Without evidentiary support, we are left with speculation and impermissible hindsight. See in Re Wagner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). We decline to engage in speculation. See, e.g., In re Vaidyanathan, 381 F. App’x 985, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Wallen, 565 F. App’x 867, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2014), both citing In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Circ. 2001) ([T]he Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.”). In sum, based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s showing is insufficient. Thus, based on the complete record presented, we determine that Petitioner has not persuasively shown that Georgiou teaches “operating the microprocessor such that each domain operates synchronously, while the domains operate asynchronously relative to one another,” as recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,089,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2024-01089 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, 56–64, and 84 are unpatentable as obvious; claim 14 was not shown unpatentable because the motivation to combine the gesture teachings was not established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 9. Additionally we did not adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’212 patent.” Id. We adopted, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, the portion of the definition proposed by Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” as “consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’212 patent and prior art of record and . . . supported by declarant testimony.” Id. Patent Owner adopted this definition (PO Resp. 12–13), noting Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding this definition (Ex. 2006, 12:15– 21). Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Madisetti, also agreed with and adopted this definition. Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 23–25. For the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution, we again adopt this definition.” slip op. at 8

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

    “C. Claim Construction The parties’ papers include some discussion of claim construction. PO Resp. 13–17; Pet. Reply 1–2; PO Sur-reply 2–3. Each party asserts, and we agree, that there is no controversy that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. Pet. Reply 2; PO Sur-reply 3; see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e 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 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

  Patent outcomesUS 10,671,212 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,671,212
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 12, 19–22, 24–32, 36–43, 47, 58, 59, 63, 71, 74, 81–84, 86–94, 97–105, 109, 119–121, and 124 are unpatentable over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin; claims 35 and 57 are not.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 9. Additionally we did not adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Id. We adopted, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, the portion of the definition proposed by Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” as consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and supported by declarant testimony. Cockburn’s testimony regarding it (Ex. 2007, 9:7–23), and, for the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution, we adopt it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

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

    “at first contending that these limitations require a continuous touch meeting both limitations; however, Patent Owner withdrew the request to construe the claim to require one continuous gesture to meet the two limitations, agreeing with Petitioner’s assertion that either one continuous gesture or two separate gestures could meet the limitations. PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3– 5; PO Sur-reply 3–4; Tr. 28:20–29:2. Because we agree with the parties that this is the correct construction, there is no remaining controversy regarding this construction that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,758 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,758
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2026 · IPR2024-01091 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 30 and 62 are unpatentable over the respective Kim and Burrough combinations; claims 1, 32, 34, and 64 were not shown unpatentable because the cited gestures lacked a common starting point.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.3 C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “gesture” must refer back to the same gesture reflects the plain meaning of the claim language. In each independent claim, the structure and usage of the language in dispute are the same. Only one gesture detection is recited, and there is no language reasonably indicating repetition or reiteration of detection for any reason at any time. Patent Owner’s position that to meet “the gesture” recitations, prior art “gestures” must all share a common starting point also makes sense and is appropriate. The same gesture must start from the same starting point or else it is not the same gesture. Specifying the understanding this way avoids treating two similar gestures as the same gesture, if they have different starting points. For instance, two taps may be the same in every way, except for their starting points. They are not the same gesture in the context of these claims.” slip op. at 19

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 10. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.3 C.” slip op. at 11

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Neither the tap-and-hold gesture in the bottom path of Kim’s Figure 7 nor the “long press input” and “long press event” of Kim such as that shown in Kim’s Figure 5 is the double-tap gesture Petitioner relies on to satisfy limitation [1.f]. Neither has been shown to have a common starting point with the double tap. Thus, Petitioner’s showing is inadequate. Limitation [1.i] recites: [1.i] when the magnitude of the duration of the gesture being detected on the touch screen on the object is greater than a second magnitude threshold, perform another operation. Pet. v. Petitioner explains: Kim teaches or renders [1.i] obvious. APPLE-1003, ¶62. Kim further describes “another operation” that is performed when the magnitude of the duration of the gesture is greater than a second magnitude threshold—specifically, a minimum threshold to be deemed an intentional touch. Specifically, Kim explains that, “[i]f detecting a user gesture, namely, if receiving an input event from a user through the touch screen, the mobile device determines the type of an input event.” APPLE-1004, [0053]. Kim states that, “[i]f an interrupt is not a request for the activation of the zoom mode as the result of determination in step 205, the mobile device can perform some action in connection with an interrupt (step 207),” shown in Figure 2a below. APPLE- 1004, [0050], FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶63. [Figure 2A of Kim is a flow diagram of a method for a touch-based control in a zoom mode (Ex. 1004 ¶ 20)] Kim additionally explains that if the mobile device determines that a detected user gesture does not correspond to any particular input event, “the mobile device disregards the received input event.” APPLE-1004, [0053]. Based on Kim’s disclosure of “disregarding” a received input, a POSITA would have understood that, for the detected interrupt (step 203) to be sufficient to cause the mobile device to “perform other action” (step 207), a magnitude greater than a minimum threshold value (e.g., the minimum threshold of an intentional user input) is relied upon, or rendered obvious, by Kim. APPLE-1004, FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶64. Thus, when the magnitude of the gesture is greater than a second magnitude threshold, the device “performs other action” (e.g., display requested menu). APPLE- 1004, [0050], FIG. 2a; APPLE-1003, ¶64. A POSITA would have understood that such an interrupt would be caused by a gesture that is longer in duration than the second threshold (as necessary to avoid the gesture from being disregarded), shorter than the duration necessary for a long press threshold, and a different gesture than a double tap gesture. APPLE-1003, ¶64. Pet. 24–26. As explained by Petitioner, the interrupt gesture relied on by” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 10,936,114 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,936,114
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–13, 15–17, 19, 20, 23–26, 29, 32–35, 37, 38, and 40–42 are unpatentable under §103; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.9 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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))). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 7. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary.” slip op. at 9

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

    “First, we find that Hackborn clearly discloses an embodiment in which swiping the finger, not just mere contact without motion (i.e., a tap), moves the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Hackborn explicitly states: “In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user is swiping her finger across a touch-sensitive display screen of the computing device. In response, the blades of grass 105 displayed in the area of the screen swiped by the user are caused to bend or sway as if contacted by the user’s finger during the swipe.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Because this description expressly refers to “swiping” or moving the finger “across” the display screen, it does not encompass a mere tap, or contact by the user that does not move on the display screen. If a single-tap-contact embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper is disclosed, it would be in an embodiment different from the swiping embodiment. Here, Petitioner is relying only on the swiping embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Hackborn discloses no need to distinguish a tap from a swipe. We find that in the swipe embodiment, it is important to distinguish a tap from a swipe, and thus there is reason, as Petitioner contends, for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westerman for implementation details on how to make such a distinction. Specifically, for recognizing a swipe from a tap, Westerman describes determining whether the finger path displacement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 61), and examining the initial velocity of the contact at contact’s touchdown (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 62). As for Patent Owner’s noting that in several instances Hackborn generally refers to a user’s finger contacting items on the wallpaper, that does not undermine Petitioner’s positions, because in the “swipe” embodiment, the referenced contact would be a swipe, and not a single tap without any motion of the finger.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 39. This reasoning is unpersuasive. The reference in claims 17, 37, and 38 to “the at least some of the plurality of images” identifies the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 1 on which claim 17 depends, and the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 23 on which claims 37 and 38 depend. According to independent claims 1 and 23, however, the displaying in sequence of the at least some of the plurality of images must be based in part on the magnitude of the first contact. Pet. vii–vii, xiv. The social networking posts and images contained therein images, identified by Petitioner as being displayed in sequence by automatically moving one-by-one, have not been shown by Petitioner as being displayed based in part of the magnitude of the user contact, as Patent Owner correctly notes. PO Resp. 32–35. In its Reply, Petitioner attempts to change its reasoning for claims 17, 37, and 38 by shifting to rely on the background wallpaper of grass swaying in response to user swiping. Reply 13–14. This shift in reliance is a belated new argument and not entitled to consideration. We decline to consider it. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17, 37, and 38 would have been obvious over Hackborn and Westerman. E.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,755 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,755
• Bizlink Technology, Inc. v. Anderson Power Products, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2024-00687 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 7–12 are unpatentable; claim 4 is not shown unpatentable because Winkler does not establish that its insulating barriers press against each other when partially disconnected.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner’s first argument that a level of ordinary skill in the art that encompasses an individual having experience with electrical circuits but not electrical connectors is not consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’017 patent. See PO Resp. 7. The field of the invention of the ’017 patent is “electrical connectors, and more particularly, . . . an electrical connector that suppresses arcing if connected or disconnected while current is flowing.” Ex. 1001, 1:7–9. Consistent therewith, the challenged claims are directed to “[a]n electrical connector pair” and recite structural features of the electrical connector pair. Id. at 4:20–56, 5:1–20.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that the intrinsic evidence supports maintaining our construction in the Institution Decision that “insulating” means “electrically insulating.” See Dec. 11–12. In particular, we agree with Patent Owner’s argument that the insulating barriers would be unable to be configured to “block[] substantially all through-air arcing paths between the first and second electrical contacts,” as claimed, unless they were electrically insulating. See Ex. 1001, 4:36–44. Moreover, as Patent Owner avers, our interpretation of “insulating” as it applies to the first and second insulating barriers should be the same as for the first and second housings. See Digital Biometrics, 149 F.3d at 1345 (“whatever interpretation we assign [to a word used in a claim] should encompass both uses because the same word appearing in the same claim should be interpreted consistently” (citation omitted)).” slip op. at 15

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

    “Ex. 2001 ¶ 102. Accordingly, we find Dr. Eldering’s testimony persuasive as to this issue and determine that the diagram shows what an ordinarily skilled artisan would have reasonably inferred Winkler to disclose when the connectors are partially disconnected. Compare Ex. 1004, Fig. 2, with Pet. 33; see also Ex. 1004, 3:14–27 (discussing the process by which the connectors are engaged with each other).” slip op. at 44

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

    “Id. at 3:27–37 (emphasis added). These wall portions 58 are located between the distal ends of the terminals and where Petitioner proposes to add a printed circuit board or wiring board to Winkler. See id. at Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46 (diagrams showing Winkler as modified to have a printed circuit board or wiring board). As such, movement of Winkler’s terminals appears to be mostly limited to within their respective receiving pockets. Given the above teachings, we fail to see how Petitioner’s proposed modification would have meaningfully interfered with the degree of freedom of movement required by Winkler’s terminals. Notably, Mr. Locati’s testimony regarding this issue is conclusory. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 120. Because movement of Winkler’s terminals occurs primarily in the receiving pockets, we also do not discern how the solder joint of Petitioner’s proposed modification would experience undue stress or risk breaking due to that movement. See Ex. 1004, 1:47–55, 3:14–37, Fig. 2; Pet. 44–46. This is particularly true in view of Winkler’s teaching that each cylindrical end portion may be soldered to a cable. See id. at 2:6–10; see also Pet. 43 (arguing that Winkler teaches soldering to a cable but not specifically to a printed circuit or wiring board). Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Winkler and Handbook.” slip op. at 55

  Patent outcomesUS 8,808,017 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,808,017
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Maxell LtdSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00735 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 and 9–13 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 were not shown unpatentable because WinTV was not established as a prior-art printed publication.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Decision on Institution adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. We find Patent Owner’s stated level to be less precise than that proposed by Petitioner in that the modifier “at least” used by Patent Owner imposes no upper bound on the amount of experience possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Also, Patent Owner states: “The difference between the Board’s definition and Patent Owner’s does not change the arguments set forth herein.” PO Resp. 5. Thus, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.10 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the district court’s construction is better than Petitioner’s proposed construction, because for reasons indicated by Patent Owner, which are not disputed by Petitioner, settings in the computer, e.g., dedicated folders for each user, are the user profiles, rather than simply data alone of any kind. Further, when asked about the appropriateness of the district court’s construction, counsel for Petitioner expressed that Petitioner has no objection to the Board’s adopting the district court’s construction for “user profile”: JUDGE LEE: So, you’d be fine with just going with the District Court’s construction? MR. HEINTZ: Yes, Your Honor. Tr. 15:22–24. For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the district court’s construction for “user profile,” i.e., “a collection of settings and information associated with a user.”” slip op. at 13

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

    “2. “the first group of video information being configured to allow a user to edit” Petitioner asserts: “This limitation should be construed for the purposes of this proceeding as meaning at least that a user can modify which video information is a part of the first group of video information.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner neither proposed its own construction nor disagreed with Petitioner’s proposed construction. We adopt the meaning as proposed by Petitioner. D.” slip op. at 14

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

    “We do not reach a resolution on the issue of relative cost between a wired LAN versus a wireless LAN, because Petitioner’s assertion that wireless LANs “were often cheaper and easier to install” is nebulous by use of the imprecise word “often.” “Often” cheaper permits “often” not cheaper. Much depends on how many access points would exist in the wired LAN. Petitioner does not discuss that consideration in the context of Horn. Also, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s other stated reasons for implementing Horn’s LAN as a wireless LAN: (1) that a wireless LAN can be more convenient to users, and (2) Baumgartner provides adequate motivation by disclosing transmission of video from server 36 via communications network 34 such as the Internet over link 48 implemented wirelessly to user computer equipment 22 such as a personal computer. Pet. 29–32. We are persuaded that a wireless LAN provides more user convenience by enabling the user equipment accessing the external network to be flexibly located within the range of the LAN without need to have wires installed to run to those locations. That is true whether there is only one user equipment or there are multiple user equipment, one per user. In the case of only one user equipment, the user can access the external network from a wide range of locations and change that location flexibly. In the case of multiple user equipment, one per user, each user can access the external network from his or her own preferred location, and also change that preference at any time without regard to whether wires have been installed to the preferred location.” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 11,017,815 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,017,815
• Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00140 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 7–10, 12–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable over the stated grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed multi-coil alignment lacked prior-art support.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience in the field of wireless energy transfer,” and that “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner does not contest this. See PO Resp. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears to be consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’654 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–28. We adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the evidence does not suggest (and Patent Owner does not explicitly argue) that the terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving” antenna depart from the ordinary and customary meanings of those terms. Pet. 1–2. However, for the reasons discussed below, the outcome of our decision would be the same whether we adopted Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Thus, we need not adopt either party’s proposed construction for this decision. 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 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “spaced configuration are not confined to ferrite cores 32 and 3, and that at least a component of the flux lines will escape the cores. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52; Ex. 1038 ¶ 54 Fig. 2. Indeed, the evidence suggests (and Dr. Horenstein acknowledges in his first declaration) that at least a component of flux will escape the core of even a traditional transformer. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 45–47; Ex. 1044, 6; Ex. 2001 ¶ 27. In his second declaration, Dr. Horenstein provides contrary testimony that in Odachi’s open configuration during alignment, cores 32 and 3 “act to confine or guide the magnetic flux lines, rather than radiate them into free space,” and “the flux lines would [not] leave the gap area and enter into the space distal to the magnetic circuit.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 69. But in view of Dr. Horenstein’s contrary position in his first declaration, and the lack of supporting evidence in his second, we do not find it credible. 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (2022) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”); Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254 (Fed. Cir. 2022).” slip op. at 24

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

    “(4) Analysis We are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that during the alignment process in Odachi corresponding to claim 13, there is a “spaced distance between the primary inductive coupler [230] and the secondary inductive receptacle 2” which is “reduced gradually and electromagnetic induction occurs between the coupler to the receptacle when the former coupler comes close to the latter receptacle.” Ex. 1005, 6:1–6. Thus, prior to any contact or precise alignment between the two cores, “an electromotive force is induced in the secondary coil 4 and this induced force is increased with the decrease in the spaced distance.” Id. at 6:6–8. At least in that spaced configuration, the evidence of record suggests that primary coil 31 produces a near-field component of flux into free space (the air space between the coils where there is no intervening core material) that is intercepted by secondary coil 4 to effect resonant inductive coupling, and that secondary coil 4 intercepts and receives the near-field component of flux in free space that is generated by primary coil 31 to effect resonant inductive coupling. See Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 48–52, 55. Thus, we find that Odachi discloses a “transmitting antenna” (coil 31) and a “receiving antenna” (coil 4) under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. We would reach the same finding under Petitioner’s proposed broader construction because the evidence suggests that Odachi’s coils 31 and 4 would have been considered “antennas” under the parties’ uncontested definition of that term, which is “a device that radiates and/or receives radio waves.” See id. ¶¶ 43–47, 53–54; Ex. 1032 ¶ 15 (Dr. Allen agreeing with this definition of “antenna”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 25 (Dr. Horenstein agreeing with this definition of “antenna”)). In addition, Petitioner persuasively shows that the free space between Odachi’s coils in the spaced configuration includes the “near-field region,” which includes the induction field around primary coil 31. See Ex. 2006, 498; Ex. 1045, 5:4–7; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 53–54). Dr. Horenstein’s testimony does not contradict this. Although he points out that there are separate terms for inductive, near, and far fields, he also acknowledges that “[t]he region of space closer to the antenna than the far field is the near-field region.” Ex. 2010 ¶ 37 (citing Ex. 2006, 275).8” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 8,466,654 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,466,654
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Eight KHZ, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2025 · IPR2023-01003 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 6, 15, 16, and 19 are unpatentable; claims 2, 8–10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. “Call” Terms (Claims 1, 8, and 15) The parties, and their respective experts, agree that “telephone call” (claim 1), “electronic call” (claim 8), and “electronic phone call” (claim 15) should be interpreted to mean “voice communication over an electronic network between at least two parties,” which was Patent Owner’s proposal in the district court case. See Pet. 16, 19 n.8, 58 (citing Ex. 1027, 9);1 Ex. 1003 ¶ 82; Ex. 2011 ¶¶ 51–53; Ex. 2016, 176:10–177:6 (Dr. Kyriakakis agreeing that “there is live voice exchange during a telephone call” (in addition to “background noise”)), 180:22–181:11 (same). Based on our review of the ’090 patent, we agree as well and adopt that interpretation for purposes of this Decision. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, col. 3, l. 1–col. 5, l. 44 (“Consider an example in which a listener sits at his kitchen table and has an electronic telephone call with his mother.”), Fig. 1. 1 When citing non-patent references, we refer to page numbers added by Petitioner in the bottom-right corner of the exhibit. Listening Person” (Claim 1) and “Sound Localization Point . . . Away From and Proximate to the First Person” (Claim 15) a) Procedural History As explained above, the parties did not propose any express interpretations in their Petition and Response. See Pet. 15; PO Resp. 3. Patent Owner argued, however, that “Petitioner and Dr. Kyriakakis misapprehend the scope and meaning of the [c]hallenged [c]laims.” PO Resp. 35–49. For example, Patent Owner argued that they “mischaracterize [c]laim 1’s scope as exclusively directed at binaural recording (but not binaural synthesis),” claim 8 “inherently us[es] binaural synthesis and HRTF processing,” and “binaural synthesis methods must be employed” for claim 15. Id. at 36, 46, 48–49 (emphasis omitted). In its Reply, Petitioner characterized the dispute between the parties as pertaining to the phrase “away from and proximate to,” where Petitioner proposed an interpretation of “a distance from” and Patent Owner allegedly was proposing “externalization of sound through HRTFs and [6 degree of freedom (6DOF)] tracking of the listener relative to the SLP that represents the talker.” Reply 2–12. Patent Owner responded in its Sur-Reply by stating that Petitioner “mischaracterizes” Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner “disputes constructions that [Patent Owner] never proposed,” and Petitioner’s focus on certain claim language for which Patent Owner “never proposed construction” was “misplaced.” Sur-Reply 1–2, 11. Patent Owner agreed, though, that the parties’ disagreement was “whether the claims require HRTF processing and whether [the] prior art teaches such processing.” Id. at 5; see Tr. 49:19–21 (Patent Owner agreeing that the dispute is “whether the claims require . . . processing with HRTFs”). dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 13

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

    “dispute between the parties, as many of the arguments regarding claim interpretation in the parties’ papers were interspersed with discussions of the prior art, the state of the art, and related declarant testimony. Paper 56, 3–4. In particular, we requested that the parties identify “the specific claim language that allegedly does or does not require HRTF processing” and the support in the record for each party’s interpretation. Id. at 4. Patent Owner responded that all of the challenged claims “require HRTF processing” because they recite the phrase “sound localization point . . . away from and proximate to the [listener].”2 PO Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis omitted). Petitioner disagreed. Pet. Supp. Br. 1. Accordingly, we interpret that phrase as it appears in independent claims 1 and 15 and, specifically, address whether the phrase requires HRTF processing.3” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Petitioner relies on its earlier arguments regarding claim 17. Pet. 41; see Ex. 1003 ¶ 184 (citing earlier analysis of Bedingfield). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to apply Ballas’s wearable frame with head tracking and HRTF processing to Bedingfield-Andrea’s headphones” to “provide[] a more realistic virtual experience,” but does not make any argument that Ballas teaches changing an ITD. Pet. 39–43; see Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–191. For the reasons explained above, we are not persuaded that Bedingfield teaches changing an ITD. See supra Section II.D.6. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 18 would have been obvious based on Bedingfield, Andrea, and Ballas under 35 U.S.C. § 103.” slip op. at 61

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “exceptional remedy of striking sentences in the Sur-Reply. Patent Owner filed the deposition transcripts of Dr. Welch and Dr. Roginska “only for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to understand the context of the cross-examination” and “does not rely on the[] [e]xhibits for any substantive argument in [the] Sur-Reply.” Sur-Reply v–vi. Patent Owner does not cite Exhibits 2029 and 2030 themselves in its Sur-Reply; it only cites Dr. Kyriakakis’s deposition transcript in this proceeding. Id. We agree with Patent Owner that its arguments in the Sur-Reply are properly responsive to the Reply because they address Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony where he was questioned about the opinions in his reply declaration (but we do not agree with Patent Owner’s claim interpretation arguments on the merits, for the reasons explained above). See Mot. to Strike Opp. 3; supra Section II.B.2.e. We also agree, under the particular factual circumstances presented, that filing Exhibits 2029 and 2030 was proper so the Board has the full context in which to evaluate Dr. Kyriakakis’s cross-examination testimony. Petitioner’s Motion to Strike is denied.” slip op. at 79

  Patent outcomesUS 9,226,090 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,226,090

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.