- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–10, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable; claims 4–5, 11–13, and 19–21 are not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’690 patent does not limit the term “probe” to channel assessment. Pet. Reply 2–4. Reviewing the intrinsic evidence, the “Technical Field” of the ’690 patent states that “some embodiments relate to channel assessment probes,” implying others do not. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. The ’690 patent further states that “receiver determined probes may be used in a variety of applications” including to “discover hidden nodes” and “off-site network diagnosis.” Id. at 2:20–27. In addition, the ’690 patent states that probes may be used for “network maintenance procedures,” to “replicate a potential problem, reach or discover a distant or previously undetected node on the network, or assist with network admissions procedures.” Id. at 4:25–38. Turning to the claims of the ’690 patent, the evidence of record does not establish that the independent claims recite anything unique or specific to channel assessment (although their scope covers that purpose). Furthermore, dependent claim 7 of the ’690 patent recites that the “probe” is used to diagnose a network problem, and dependent claim 13 recites that the “probe” is used to identify a hidden node. Restricting the independent claims to probes used solely for channel assessment would be contradictory to these dependent claims. Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (construction of term in independent claims should not render dependent claims superfluous or lacking scope).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that a “physical layer probe” is “a probe that relates to the physical layer.” The term does not appear per se in the specification of the ’960 patent, nor in the prosecution history, but only in claims 9, 17, and 19. However, the term “physical layer” is well-known and is the first layer in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) network model. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 35–40, 69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49–50. The physical layer is used to transmit digital bits over a network, and defines the timing, mechanical, and physical network characteristics required for transmitting the data bits. Hence, a “physical layer probe” is a probe that relates to the physical layer. We need not, and do not, construe the term further to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime, Vivid Techs., supra. Having decided proper constructions for the disputed terms, we proceed in our analysis to consider the parties’ arguments concerning the challenge grounds. In the following sections, we apply the plain meaning of the claim terms, and as necessary, specify what the plain meanings are.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA8 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’690 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Hence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderant evidence that the Ranging Request (“probe request”) message includes CID and SS MAC address and other parameters (“first plurality of parameters”) which at least specify the CID (“content payload of the probe”) and the SS MAC address (“second node”) of the Ranging Response.12 We thus proceed to consider Petitioner’s contentions for the remaining limitations of claim 1, which are undisputed, and determine that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE-802.16.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,284,690 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,284,690 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2024-00441 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable over Kamieniecki and Konstantinos; Petitioner did not show claims 1–18 unpatentable over Renken or Renken and Cholas because Renken is not prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in The Art Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, and three-to-four years of experience working with television signal processing and communication 1 Because the challenged claims have an effective filing date before the effective date of the AIA, we apply the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. 2 US 2005/0114879 A1, published May 26, 2005 (Ex. 1009). 3 US 2010/0120386 A1, published May 13, 2010 (Ex. 1010). 4 US 2010/0303181 A1, published Dec. 2, 2010 (Ex. 1016). 5 US 2008/0313691 A1, published Dec. 18, 2008 (Ex. 1017). 6 US 8,649,421 B2, issued Feb. 11, 2014 (Ex. 1011). systems,” and that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience and significant work experience may substitute for formal education.” Pet. 30 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–42). “Patent Owner accepts the Petition’s [description of a person of ordinary skill] solely for purposes of responding to the Petition in this proceeding.” PO Resp. 11. Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it appears consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this Decision. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“On the present record, we do not discern a need to construe explicitly any claim language because doing so would have no effect on our analyses and will not assist in resolving the present controversy between the parties. 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)). C.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree that the record provides sufficient evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it advantageous to add a multi-channel receiver to improve monitoring, as Petitioner argues. Having the ability to monitor without waiting for idle or disturbing users would be a clear advantage.” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that Patent Owner has not shown a sufficient nexus between the claimed invention and any product embodying the claimed invention that was successful, praised, or solved a long-felt need. Patent Owner identifies five elements allegedly required “[t]o implement MaxLinear’s Remote Spectrum Monitoring in CPE.” See PO Resp. 65. To support this, Patent Owner cites pages 5–7 of Exhibit 2009. See id.7 That exhibit, however, describes requirements for “Full Band Capture,” not MaxLinear’s “Remote Spectrum Monitoring.” To” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,792,008 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,792,008 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00446 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations of Rabenko, Gaspar, and Kim, with additional references for certain dependent claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“the invention “would have had at least a degree in computer or electrical engineering, computer science, information systems, or a similar discipline, along with three-to-four years of experience with the design and/or implementation of cable modems within network-based content delivery systems” and that “[a]dditional education may substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience [could have] substitute[d] for formal education.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–45). Patent Owner does not challenge the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and its expert, so we adopt Petitioner’s proposal, which we find to be reasonable and consistent with the ’775 patent’s specification and the cited prior art. B.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Despite some disagreement during the briefing about the meaning of “DOCSIS controller,” the parties now appear to agree that Patent Owner’s suggested construction is generally correct. See PO Resp. 13 (“[T]he claimed DOCSIS controller must control DOCSIS functions. This does not mean that it must control all DOCSIS functions or all DOCSIS functions identified in the specification.”); Sur-reply 1 (“Under its plain meaning, a ‘DOCSIS controller’ must control or implement one or more DOCSIS functions.”); Tr. 66:19–21 ([Q]: “And as long the controller performs one of those functions that of, for DOCSIS, it qualifies as a DOCSIS – [Petitioner’s Counsel]: “It’s a DOCSIS function [sic, controller] in our point of view.”). We accordingly construe “DOCSIS controller” to mean “a physical or functional controller that controls, implements, or performs a DOCSIS function.” It is not limited to a certain number or category of DOCSIS functions.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We do not agree with Petitioner’s obvious to try theory because Petitioner does not show that the “few finite options” were known in the prior art. However, we nevertheless agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious for the cable modem engine to have been configured to enable upgrades to its software in a manner that is independent of upgrades to the software of the data networking engine. This is primarily because this limitation appears to require little more than that a software update could change the cable modem functionality (e.g., the PacketCable or DOCSIS functionality) without changing the data networking engine functionality (e.g., the CableHome functionality). See Ex. 1001, 3:49–62. Gaspar, for example, shows that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the evolution of standards in this field requires controller upgrades, and a software update addressing only a change in the PacketCable standard (because only that standard had changed, for example) would be an upgrade to the cable modem software that would be independent of any upgrades to data networking engine software. We credit Dr. Kiaei’s testimony that one of ordinary skill “would have understood that two different engines performing two different functions and using two different protocols (DOCSIS and PNA) should be separately upgradeable to address protocol changes independently.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 123.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artUnpatentableAnalogous artUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that use of these ARM processors would have been an obvious design choice, given that they were known to be useful in applications “that demand the highest levels of performance with small size, low cost, and low power consumption.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 8. 5 Put another way, we conclude that claims limiting an otherwise obvious system to off-the-shelf hardware of the type generally suitable for the purpose does not make the subject matter non-obvious. Regarding whether Klein and Kim ʼ678 are analogous art, we find that they are pertinent to the problem confronting the ’775 patent inventors who would have been looking for processors suitable for implementation of the invention, and Klein and Kim ʼ678 indicate that these processors would be suitable in applications that, though different, also implicated similar size, cost, and power consumption considerations. For these reasons, having carefully considered the fully developed record, we conclude that the Petition has established that the combination of Rabenko, Klein, and Kim ʼ678 teaches or suggests use of the claimed ARM processors.” slip op. at 31
Patent outcomesUS 8,223,775 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,223,775 - Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 15, 2025 · IPR2024-00442 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 9–13, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 5–8 and 14–17 were not shown unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner “accepts” Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art “solely for purposes of responding to the Petition.” PO Resp. 11. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’826 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“As there is no controversy between the parties regarding any claim language that we would need to resolve in order to render our decision in this case, we apply the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim terms without specific construction. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for petitioner
“In addition, Petitioner contends that the ’826 patent’s claims are not recited in means-plus-function form under § 112 ¶ 6. Pet. 25. Because the word “means” does not appear in the claims of the ’826 patent, there is a presumption that the claims do not recite means-plus-function limitations under § 112 ¶ 6. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). Since neither party offers any argument or evidence to contravene this presumption, we do not construe any claim term as means-plus-function in rendering our decision.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Although Patent Owner argues that adding Konstaninos’s multi- channel functionality to Kamieniecki’s single-channel device would increase costs and complexity, Patent Owner overlooks that multi-channel functionality would also increase the STB’s capabilities. In any case, “a given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate a motivation to combine.” General Elec. Co. v. Raytheon Tech. Corp., 983 F.3d 1334, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Furthermore, Petitioner presents preponderant evidence that the market demand was such that customers would have desired an STB with multi-channel functionality even though it would cost more than a basic STB. Pet. Reply 6–8 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 1, 11, 16, 102–104; Ex. 1032 ¶¶ 5–6; Ex. 1033, 27:6–29:23; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 70, 108). Konstantinos expressly teaches that the “evolving market for data and programming services will demand that receivers have the capability of multi-channel tuning.” Ex. 1010 ¶ 1. Petitioner has thus established that there was market demand that would have led a POSITA to improve Kamieniecki with Konstantinos’s multi-carrier capability. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge of a [POSITA], all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the manner claimed by the patent at issue.” (emphasis added)). Moreover, we agree with Petitioner that Konstantinos addresses the cost and complexity issues that Patent Owner asserts are problematic. Pet. 35–36; Pet. Reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102, 105–106). For example, Konstantinos teaches that breaking up the original signal into smaller subsignals decreases the required sampling rate for each band since interleaved lower-rate samplers can be used, which reduces power consumption and interference, and enables conventional digital channel selection methods to be used for fine selection of one channel from a band of channels. Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 102, 104105. In addition, Konstantinos teaches reducing cost and complexity through a single chip solution. Ex. 1002 ¶ 150; Ex. 1010 ¶ 44. Hence, we do not see the cost or complexity issues that Patent Owner mentions as barriers that would have prevented a POSITA from making the combination. Similarly unavailing is Patent Owner’s stance that Kamieniecki is satisfactory for the applications for which it is designed such that a POSITA would not seek to improve it with Konstantinos. PO Sur-Reply 8–11. Konstantinos recognizes the market demand for multi-channel functionality, so adding this capability to Kamieniecki’s single-channel device would have been a natural thing for the POSITA to pursue in light of the advantages afforded thereby. Ex. 1010 ¶ 1; KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of the invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed”).” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,825,826 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,825,826 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - PTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00308 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claim 1, finding a reasonable likelihood it would be shown obvious over Darnell and Kim; it did not reach the Dasgupta and Kim ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “a bachelor’s degree in computer science and two years’ experience in cloud computing or a similar field, or a master’s degree in computer science or similar field.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 1–55, 119–122). Patent Owner describes a person of ordinary skill in the art as a person having “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and approximately 3 years of experience working with content management systems and graphical user interfaces; or a more advanced degree such a master’s or doctorate with proportionally less work experience.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner and Patent Owner’s descriptions of a person of ordinary skill are similar, although Patent Owner’s proposal is slightly more experienced. Both appear to be reasonably consistent with the subject matter of the ’068 patent. For purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s description, which is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Martin. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 121; see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). C.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the current record, we credit Dr. Martin’s testimony and preliminarily determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “real time” as it is used in the context of the ’068 patent means to provide or transmit content when it is available without significant delay. This, however, does not resolve the issue of whether, as Petitioner contends, the claims require that content must be streamed in “real time” to just a “master server,” or as Patent Owner contends, content must also be streamed in “real time” to a “master webpage.”” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“1. Rationale to Combine Darnell and Kim Petitioner contends that “Darnell and Kim address similar problems of aggregating and presenting multiple feed sources to a user.” Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 390–391). Petitioner notes, for example, that “Darnell addresses ‘[l]ooking through a dense list of content items to locate items of interest,’ which is cumbersome for a user,” and Kim “similarly addresses the problem of viewing multiple pieces of fragmented content from news sources, blog entries, email, and the like in a ‘consuming experience having significant drawbacks.’” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 391; Ex. 1004 ¶ 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 1). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim’s teachings for aggregating news, blog entries, and email in a network computer and sending the feeds to a remote computer for display in a UI to be suitable for use with Darnell’s feed reader architecture, in which content feed sources are aggregated on a remote server instead of at the user device. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 391). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to implement Kim’s identification of “traits” and the organization of the user interface based on those traits in Darnell’s feed aggregation system. Id., ¶ 392. A POSITA would have been further motivated to implement Kim’s feed application, email application, media application, and photo application using Darnell’s server system 104 rather than on user devices, because doing so would allow users to access personalized content feeds on any user device (e.g., phone, computer, tablet, etc.) instead of only on a single user device. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 392–395). Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have further understood Darnell and Kim to be compatible because they disclose content feed aggregators with a similar user experience—aggregating multiple content feeds from different sources into a unified user interface displayed on a user device. Darnell, Abstract, ¶¶ 8, 11–14, 30–32, 37–38, Fig. 1; Kim, Abstract, ¶¶ 20–23, 37, Fig. 1; Martin, ¶¶ 396-397. Thus, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Kim’s additional feed types and feed processing on a server instead of the user device based on Darnell’s teachings.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,334,068 - PTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2025-00307 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–18 on all four § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Darnell and Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Settled expectationsDecided for patent owner
“or “Petition”), to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–18 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,729,658 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’658 patent”). On March 28, 2025, the Board issued a notice extending the deadline for discretion briefing pursuant to the bifurcated discretionary denial review process that applies to proceedings with a patent owner preliminary response due after March 26, 2025.1 Paper 10. On May 1, 2025, RazDog Holdings LLC (“Patent Owner”) timely filed a Preliminary Response, Paper 12 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Patent Owner filed a request for discretionary denial. Paper 11. Petitioner filed an opposition to Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial. Paper 13. On May 16, 2025, the Acting Director issued a decision denying Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial and referring the petition to the Board. Paper 18.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the current record, we credit Dr. Martin’s testimony and preliminarily determine that the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “real time” as it is used in the context of the ’658 patent means to provide or transmit content when it is available without significant delay. This, however, does not resolve the issue of whether, as Petitioner contends, the claims require that content must be streamed in “real time” to just a “master server,” or as Patent Owner contends, content must also be streamed in “real time” to a “master webpage.”” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“1. Rationale to Combine Darnell and Kim Petitioner contends that “Darnell and Kim address similar problems of aggregating and presenting multiple feed sources to users.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 146). Petitioner notes, for example, that “Darnell addresses ‘[l]ooking through a dense list of content items to locate items of interest,’ which is cumbersome for users,” and Kim “similarly addresses the problem of viewing multiple pieces of fragmented content from news sources, blog entries, email, and the like in a ‘consuming experience having significant drawbacks.’” Pat. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 146; Ex. 1004 ¶ 9; Ex. 1005 ¶ 1). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Kim’s teachings for aggregating news, blog entries, and email in a network computer and sending the feeds to a remote computer for display in a UI to be suitable for use with Darnell’s feed reader architecture, in which content feed sources are aggregated on a remote server instead of at the user device. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20–24; Ex. 1002 ¶ 146). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated to implement Kim’s identification of “traits” and the organization of the UI based on those traits in Darnell’s feed aggregation system. Id., ¶147. POSITAs would have been further motivated to implement Kim’s feed application, email application, media application, and photo application using Darnell’s server system 104 rather than on user devices, because doing so would allow users to access personalized content feeds on any device (e.g., phone, computer, tablet, etc.) instead of only on a single device. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 147–150). Petitioner also asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have further understood Darnell’s and Kim’s compatibility because they disclose content feed aggregators with a similar user experience—aggregating multiple content feeds from different sources into a unified UI displayed on user devices. Darnell, Abstract, ¶¶ 8, 11–14, 30–32, 37–38, Fig. 1; Kim, Abstract, ¶¶ 20–23, 37, Fig. 1; Martin, ¶¶ 151–152. Thus, POSITAs would have been motivated to implement Kim’s additional feed types and feed processing on a server instead of user devices based on Darnell’s teachings.” slip op. at 23
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,729,658 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507 - Tesla, Inc. v. The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Navy (Intellectual Ventures II LLC)Institution deniedPTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2025-00341 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Tesla had not shown a reasonable likelihood that claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Institution of an inter partes review is authorized when “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.108. Having considered the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Reply, and the Sur-reply, as well as the evidence of record, we conclude that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claims 10, 11, 14, 16, and 18 of the ’743 patent. We accordingly do not institute inter partes review. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have “been someone knowledgeable and familiar with the areas of networking and distributed computing that are pertinent to the ’743 patent,” would “have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately 2-3 years of professional experience relating to distributed computing,” and that a “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex.1003, ¶¶ 32-34). Patent Owner does not address this issue in the Preliminary Response. As Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art, we adopt it for purposes of this analysis. B.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“of “event,” in which Petitioner argued that the term should be broad enough to include “processing radar sensor data, performing radar tracking initialization and refinement, and distributing radar tracking information to other modules,” and Patent Owner argued that the specification uses the term as “as an umbrella term to cover various types of ‘internal event and performance data’ such as ‘application statuses, states, performance, and internally detected errors.’” Reply 1; Sur-reply 2. We agree with Patent Owner that that claimed “events” must concern “application statuses, states, performance, and internally detected errors.” See Ex. 1001, 7:44–45. The patent explains that function group 2 collects that type of information from applications using an API and then “correlate[es], combin[es], and reformat[s] [the] application data into higherlevel metrics (composite events) for use by displays or other Resource Management components.” Id. at 7:52–54. The middleware described and claimed in the ’743 is concerned with how applications are performing, not what they doing.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“This claim limitation, however, also requires “event correlation capabilities.” For that, Petitioner asserts that “Welch’s metrics calculation component (part of the ‘second function group’) provides ‘event correlation capabilities’ because the QoS management software “implementation includes the following capabilities: . . . (2) track correlation and filtering algorithms.” Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1003, 4). This, we find, mischaracterizes Welch’s disclosure, because Welch’s metrics calculation component does not perform the identified “correlation.” The language quoted by Petitioner comes from the experimental results section of Welch, which describes how the implementation of the NSWC HiPer-D testbed, the system that was used test Welch’s QoS middleware, included “track correlation and filtering algorithms.” Ex. 1005, 4. Welch is not explaining that the middleware correlates the QoS system level events that Petitioner has identified as the claimed “events,” but, instead, that the NSWC HiPer-D system that was used to test the middleware included the ability to correlate radar data in a shipboard anti-air-warfare system.6 The correlating mentioned in Welch occurs at the application level, not in the middleware.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,181,743
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.