• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 12, 2026 · IPR2025-00070 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–7, and 9–21 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2 and 8 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted art did not meet their construed limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL A. Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience and who would have had a working knowledge of software security analysis, and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 8 (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Ex. 2031 ¶¶ 15–16. We adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We begin with the claim language in view of the Specification, which weighs heavily against Patent Owner’s position that we should rewrite “computer system” as narrowly referring to a “computing device.” PO Resp. 24. As Petitioner notes, the ’872 patent’s Specification uses “computer system” to refer to a wide range of equipment, from a component of a computing device, to a whole computing device, to a collection of computing devices. Reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:5–8, 11:15–18, 16:50–55). In one example, the Specification refers to “one or more other computer systems (e.g., protected network devices 136).” Ex. 1001, 18:52–53. Thus, the Specification lists “protected network devices 136” as only an example of “other computer systems,” demonstrating that “computer systems” refers to things other than protected network devices. Although Patent Owner may be correct that this passage more than a single computing device,” we find that other disclosures in the ’872 patent do. Specifically, the Specification uses the language “distributed computer system” when referring to numerous components, including “protected network devices” and an “IDS/IPS system.” Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Reply 10. In addition to showing that a “computer system” is not limited to a single computing device, this conveys that a “computer system” according to the ’872 patent can include an IDS/IPS.” slip op. at 14

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

    “Based on our review of the complete record, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to be more persuasive. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s argument and evidence that capturing detailed information like Goel’s activity sources, activity targets, and association was recognized as enhancing threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 79); see PO Resp. 55–59; Sur-Reply 15–17. Additionally, contrary to Patent Owner’s suggestion, we find that the Petition does not propose incorporating Goel’s kernel hooks into Capalik’s system. See Pet. 41–46. Patent Owner contends that the Petition’s reference to modifying Capalik by “adding lines of code” suggests implementing the code disclosed in Goel include kernel hooks. Id. Notwithstanding Patent Owner’s assertion otherwise, this is an unpersuasive bodily incorporation argument, as the Petition never says an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used the exact lines of code from Goel in Capalik. Rather, the Petition says that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sufficient skill to implement straightforward code modifications to identify activity sources, targets, and associations: a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have understood that modifying Capalik’s system (e.g., Linux-based) to additionally monitor, identify, and store each individual activity of an attack including “activity sources, activity targets, and associations” would have required straightforward modifications to programs/code instructions, which would have been well-within the skillset of a [person of ordinary skill in the art]. Pet. 46. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner does not explain how an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Capalik without using kernel hooks. Sur-Reply 17. But Patent Owner does not cite any evidence to counter Dr. Jakobsson’s testimony that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had the skill to apply Goel’s general teaching of identifying sources, targets, and associations to Capalik’s system. Ex. 1003 ¶ 182. On the whole, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position that the combination would have required substantially increased detection risk. Moreover, even if the combination would have somewhat increased detection risk, Petitioner persuades us that an ordinarily skilled artisan still would have had reason to combine the references teachings. Patent Owner’s allegations of increased detection risk do not negate the undisputed evidence that the combination would have provided the advantage of improved threat analysis. Pet. 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–182). Ultimately, Patent Owner’s that activity logging be undetectable.” PO Resp. 56 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 6). This exaggerates Capalik’s disclosure. Although the cited paragraph suggests that certain systems unfortunately may be detectable by some users, it does not convey that it is a requirement for the system to be categorically undetectable. See Ex. 1004 ¶ 6.8 In sum, Petitioner persuades us by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Capalik “to identify and store unauthorized activities including the activity source, activity target, and association of each activity.” Pet. 41–46; PO Resp. 55–59; Reply 20–22; Sur-Reply 15–17.” slip op. at 47

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

    “arguments and evidence, we determine that Patent Owner fails to sufficiently show a nexus between any of its objective indicia evidence and the claimed invention. See Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The patentee bears the burden of showing that a nexus exists”). A showing of sufficient nexus is required to establish that the evidence relied upon traces its basis to a novel element in the claim, not to something in the prior art. Institut Pasteur & Universite Pierre Et Marie Curie v. Focarino, 738 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Objective evidence that results from something that is not “both claimed and novel in the claim” lacks a nexus to the merits of the invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis omitted). Thus, establishing nexus involves a showing that novel elements in the claim, not prior-art elements, account for the objective evidence of nonobviousness. Id. As discussed above, Petitioner shows that Capalik teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner persuades us that none of claim 1’s elements individually nor any combination thereof is novel over Capalik’s disclosure. Accordingly, claim 1 is not novel over Capalik, which disproves Patent Owner’s assertion of nexus. PO Resp. 73–76. Moreover, even if claim 1 were novel, Patent Owner otherwise fails to show nexus for its commercial success, praise, or copying assertions. Patent Owner’s evidence does not show that Petitioner’s commercial product embodies claim 1. For example, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “failed to analyze any meaningful detail regarding” how the Falcon Platform allegedly meets limitation 1(d). Reply 28–29. In particular, Patent Owner has not sufficiently addressed limitation 1(d) with the following argument: “1[D] The Falcon Platform transmitted to other computer systems” slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 9,954,872 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,872
• Jumio Corporation v. Facetec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2026 · IPR2025-00109 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the petitioner failed to establish motivation to combine the references and failed to show the claimed different-distance image capture.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Having considered the full record at trial, we maintain the preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Inst. Dec. 11–12. In particular, based on the teachings of the ’910 Patent and the asserted prior art, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a work experience related to biometrics, facial authentication, computer vision, and/or optics as at least one of those fields is respectively implicated by the ’910 Patent and the asserted prior at. Moreover, our decision would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

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

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the principles set forth by the Federal Circuit, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties do not dispute any claim terms or phrases and our decision does not require construing any particular claim terms or phrases, therefore, we do not expressly construe any particular claim term or phrase. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’”” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that these reasons would not have adequately motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify the references in Petitioner’s asserted manner to reach the claimed features. Petitioner’s motivations — “substitution,” “obvious alternative . . . approaches,” “use of a known technique,” and “complimentary” techniques — are all similarly based on swapping or adding techniques for verifying three dimensionality. See Pet. 13–17; Pet. Reply 16–17. Those motivations might have been suitable had Tanii described techniques to verify three dimensionality, but Petitioner has not shown that Tanii describes any technique to verify three dimensionality. See Pet. 13–17, 25–28. Instead, as discussed above, Tanii describes the existence of the perspective distortion phenomenon and a technique for correcting it. As such, substituting the knowledge that perspective distortion exists and techniques to correct it does not correspond adequately motivate Petitioner’s combination. Put another way, because Tanii does not teach an approach for verifying three-dimensionality, Tanii’s techniques cannot be used as a substitute for approaches that do verify three dimensionality simply because Tanii discloses the concept of perspective distortion.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “distance from the user. Derakhshani teaches two different approaches (1) focus-distance approach and (2) parallax approach. Petitioner acknowledges that the focus-distance approach does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. Pet. 13 (distinguishing “focus distances” from “actual distances.”). This is because focus-distance, by definition, is not actual distance. Ex. 1005, 16:47–48 (“Focus distance is the distance from a sensor to a point in its field of view that is perfectly in focus.”) In Derakhshani’s focus-distance approach the camera stays the same distance from its subject—only the focus distance changes. Id. at 16:66–17:2 (“By comparing degree of focus for a landmark in images with different focus distances, the distance from the sensor to the landmark may be estimated.”) Derakhshani’s parallax approach also does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. In the parallax approach the camera is rotated or slid about the user to create images with different perspectives. Ex. 1005, 17:59–64 (“In some implementations, the sensor is moved about the subject during image capture to collect image data from different orientations relative to the subject. For example, a single camera may be rotated or slid slightly or multiple cameras at different positions may be used for image capture.”). Rotating a camera around a user does not change the distance of the camera from the user. At the hearing Petitioner, indicating that Derakhshani takes a second image at a second distance. Tr. 16:9–12 (“[Petitioner’s Counsel: . . . Dr. Daft is talking about some of the terms that Derakhshani is using. For example, the term slid and shown in the images, he talks about how slid refers to the different distances between the sensor and the user.”). We determine that it is more likely that the word “slid,” as used in the relevant portion of Derakhshani, further describes the rotation of the camera about the user. Derakhshani indicates as much by describing that both rotating and sliding the camera are examples of how the camera sensor is “moved about the subject during image capture.” Ex. 1005, 17:60–61. Thus, sliding the camera does not necessarily disclose moving the camera to a second distance from the subject. Zhang also does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. Petitioner acknowledges as much stating “[a]lthough Zhang does not expressly say that the second image is captured at a second distance different from the distance of the first image, this would have been obvious to a POSITA.” Pet. 61 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 1046). Because Zhang does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance, Petitioner once again relies on expert testimony to argue that the multiple images disclosed in Zhang would have been taken at different perspectives resulting from rotating or translating the position of the camera and that taking images at different distances would have enhanced Zhang’s homography-transformation procedure. Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 1046). From here Petitioner repeats many of the same arguments it made regarding the parallax approach from Derakhshani, except that these arguments are on even weaker footing because Zhang does not mention taking images by translating the position of the camera, nor even that the multiple images taken should be from different perspectives. Each of these assertions are made solely on the basis of Petitioner’s expert testimony, and as such are not persuasive. Pet. 61–62 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 1046). Petitioner’s argument that Zhang teaches capturing a second image at a second distance simply lacks sufficient support from Zhang’s disclosure.” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 11,874,910 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,874,910
• Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2026 · IPR2025-00108 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations lacked adequate motivation to combine and did not teach capturing images at different distances.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proffered level of skill is too broad with respect to work experience. PO Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner counters that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or a related field, and two years’ work experience related to biometric security, facial authentication, and three-dimensional computer vision such that they would have had significant academic and/or work experience in both facial biometrics and computer vision. Id. at 28–29. Having considered the full record at trial, we maintain the preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Inst. Dec. 13–14. In particular, based on the teachings of the ’938 patent and the asserted prior art, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a work experience related to biometrics, facial authentication, computer vision, and/or optics as at least one of those fields is respectively implicated by the ’938 patent and the asserted prior at. Moreover, our decision would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9

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

    “C. Claim Construction We interpret claim terms using “the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the principles set forth by the Federal Circuit, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties do not dispute any claim terms or phrases and our decision does not require construing any particular claim terms or phrases, therefore, we do not expressly construe any particular claim term or phrase. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “images are three dimensional—let alone a technique that captures two images at different distances, compares the images for certain differences, and verifies three dimensionality based on those differences, as recited by the claim. Instead, Tanii describes a system that “corrects warp in which the perspective is exaggerated when an image is captured with the user’s face at close range.” Ex. 1007, code (57). In particular, Tanii recognizes the physical phenomenon of perspective distortion (fish-eye distortion) where “[i]f the image of the face of a person or the like is captured from a point that is relatively nearby, an image is obtained in which the perspective appears exaggerated,” i.e., the user image is warped or distorted. Id. ¶ 6; see id. ¶ 48, Fig. 4B. Tanii corrects such warped images by enlarging peripheral areas of the user image. Id. ¶¶ 55–56.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “distance from the user. Derakhshani teaches two different approaches: (1) focus-distance approach and (2) parallax approach. Petitioner acknowledges that the focus-distance approach does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. Pet. 12 (distinguishing “focus distances” from “actual distances.”). This is because focus-distance, by definition, is not actual distance. Ex. 1005, 16:47–48 (“Focus distance is the distance from a sensor to a point in its field of view that is perfectly in focus.”) In Derakhshani’s focus-distance approach the camera stays the same distance from its subject—only the focus distance changes. Id. at 16:66–17:2 (“By comparing degree of focus for a landmark in images with different focus distances, the distance from the sensor to the landmark may be estimated.”) Derakhshani’s parallax approach also does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. In the parallax approach the camera is rotated or slid about the user to create images with different perspectives. Derakhshani, 17:59–64 (“In some implementations, the sensor is moved about the subject during image capture to collect image data from different orientations relative to the subject. For example, a single camera may be rotated or slid slightly or multiple cameras at different positions may be used for image capture.”). Rotating a camera around a user does not change the distance of the camera from the user. At the hearing Petitioner, instead, focused specifically on the use of the word “slid” in Derakhshani as indicating that Derakhshani takes a second image at a second distance. Tr. 16:9–12 (“[Petitioner’s Counsel: . . . Dr. Daft is talking about some of the terms that Derakhshani is using. For example, the term slid and shown in the images, he talks about how slid refers to the different distances between the sensor and the user.”). We determine that it is more likely that the word “slid,” as used in the relevant portion of Derakhshani, further describes the rotation of the camera about the user. Derakhshani indicates as much by describing that both rotating and sliding the camera are examples of how the camera sensor is “moved about the subject during image capture.” Derakhshani, 17:60–61. Thus, sliding the camera does not necessarily disclose moving the camera to a second distance from the subject.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 11,693,938 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 11,693,938
• Jumio Corporation v. Facetec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2026 · IPR2025-00107 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not determined unpatentable because the petition did not establish motivation to combine the references or that they taught capturing images at different distances.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proffered level of skill is too broad with respect to work experience. PO Resp. 27–28. Patent Owner counters that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or a related field, and two years’ work experience related to biometric security, facial authentication, and three-dimensional computer vision such that they would have had significant academic and/or work experience in both facial biometrics and computer vision. Id. at 28–29. Having considered the full record at trial, we maintain the preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Inst. Dec. 8. In particular, based on the teachings of the ’606 Patent and the asserted prior art, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a work experience related to biometrics, facial authentication, computer vision, and/or optics as at least one of those fields is respectively implicated by the ’606 Patent and the asserted prior at. Moreover, our decision would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9

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

    “The parties do not dispute any claim terms or phrases and our decision does not require construing any particular claim terms or phrases, therefore, we do not expressly construe any particular claim term or phrase. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that these reasons would not have adequately motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify the references in Petitioner’s asserted manner to reach the claimed features. Petitioner’s motivations—“substitution,” “obvious alternative . . . approaches,” “use of a known technique,” and “complimentary” techniques—are all similarly based on swapping or adding techniques for verifying three dimensionality. See Pet. 12–16; Pet. Reply 6–7. These motivations might have been suitable had Tanii described techniques for verifying three dimensionality, but Petitioner has not shown that Tanii describes any technique to verify three dimensionality. See Pet. 12–16, 19–23. Instead, as discussed above, Tanii describes the existence of the perspective distortion phenomenon and a technique for correcting it. As such, substituting the knowledge that perspective distortion exists and techniques to correct it does not correspond with approaches for verifying three-dimensionality, and so does not adequately motivate Petitioner’s combination. Put another way, because Tanii does not teach an approach for verifying three-dimensionality, Tanii’s techniques cannot be used as a substitute for approaches that do verify three dimensionality simply because Tanii discloses the concept of perspective distortion.” slip op. at 16

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia with nexusObjective indicia outweighedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner has demonstrated a nexus by showing that certain objective indicia, discussed below, are the direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. As discussed above in our summary of the ’606 Patent and reflected in our discussion of Petitioner’s obviousness challenges (see §§ I.F, II.E.1, II.E.2, II.E.3), the unique characteristics of the claim relate to verification of three dimensionality by comparing two images taken at different distances for perspective distortion. Indeed, those features are what distinguish over the prior art. See id. Furthermore, Patent Owner, supported by testimony from its Chief Technology Officer, Mr. Rose, asserts the unique characteristics claimed are reflected in the “3D liveness checks” its ZoOm software product provides because ZoOm “confirms that a user is 3D by comparing images taken at different distances for expected differences in biometric data, such as the presence of appropriate perspective distortion and differences.” PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex. 2059 ¶ 49). Patent Owner’s assertion is further supported by a “FaceTec Software Explanation” stating that its software uses “near & far image data . . . to determine if the expected differences in perspective distortion are present in the image data” and, from that, “decides if there is sufficient evidence in the image data to conclude with a high degree [of] confidence that the image data contains first-generation biometric data captured in real-time from a live, physically present user.” Ex. 2067; see PO Resp. 25–26. As such, the 3D liveness checks provided by Patent Owner’s software are indicative of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention and, as we discuss below, certain objective indicia of nonobviousness have a direct nexus to the 3D liveness checks of its software.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,157,606 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,157,606
• Jumio Corp. v. Facetec, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2026 · IPR2025-00106 · APJ Nabeel U Khan · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board determined claims 1–20 were not unpatentable because Jumio did not show sufficient motivation to combine the references or that they taught capturing images at different distances.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argues Petitioner’s proffered level of skill is too broad with respect to work experience. PO Resp. 28. Patent Owner counters that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, physics, or a related field, and two years’ work experience related to biometric security, facial authentication, and three-dimensional computer vision such that they would have had significant academic and/or work experience in both facial biometrics and computer vision. Id. at 28–29. Having considered the full record at trial, we maintain the preliminary finding regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Inst. Dec. 11–12. In particular, based on the teachings of the ’471 patent and the asserted prior art, we are persuaded that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a work experience related to biometrics, facial authentication, computer vision, and/or optics as at least one of those fields is respectively implicated by the ’471 patent and the asserted prior at. Moreover, our decision would be the same under either proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

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

    “that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. 282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under the principles set forth by the Federal Circuit, the “words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’” as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The parties do not dispute any claim terms or phrases and our decision does not require construing any particular claim terms or phrases, therefore, we do not expressly construe any particular claim term or phrase. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We find that these reasons would not have adequately motivated a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify the references in Petitioner’s asserted manner to reach the claimed features. Petitioner’s motivations—“substitution,” “obvious alternative . . . approaches,” “use of a known technique,” and “complimentary” techniques—are all similarly based on swapping or adding techniques for verifying three dimensionality. See Pet. 12–16; Pet. Reply 6–7. These motivations might have been suitable had Tanii described techniques for verifying three dimensionality, but Petitioner has not shown that Tanii describes any technique to verify three dimensionality. See Pet. 13–17, 25–28. Instead, as discussed above, Tanii describes the existence of the perspective distortion phenomenon and a technique for correcting it. As such, substituting the knowledge that perspective distortion exists and techniques to correct it does not correspond with approaches for verifying three-dimensionality, and so does not adequately motivate Petitioner’s combination. Put another way, because Tanii does not teach an approach for verifying three-dimensionality, Tanii’s techniques cannot be used as a substitute for approaches that do verify three dimensionality simply because Tanii discloses the concept of perspective distortion.” slip op. at 18

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “none of the relied upon references teach capturing two images at two different distances, as required by limitations 1[d3] and 1[d4]. These limitations recite “moving the camera from a first location to a second location, the second location being a second distance from the user” and “capturing at least one second image of the user taken with the camera of the computing device at the second distance from the user, the second distance being different than the first distance.” Derakhshani does not teach capturing a second image at a second distance from the user. Derakhshani teaches two different approaches: (1) focus-distance approach and (2) parallax approach. Petitioner acknowledges that the focus-distance approach does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. Pet. 13 (distinguishing “focus distances” from “actual distances.”). This is because focus-distance, by definition, is not actual distance. Ex. 1005, 16:47–48 (“Focus distance is the distance from a sensor to a point in its field of view that is perfectly in focus.”) In Derakhshani’s focus-distance approach the camera stays the same distance from its subject—only the focus distance changes. Id. at 16:66–17:2 (“By comparing degree of focus for a landmark in images with different focus distances, the distance from the sensor to the landmark may be estimated.”) Derakhshani’s parallax approach also does not expressly disclose capturing a second image at a second distance. In the parallax approach the camera is rotated or slid about the user to create images with different perspectives. Ex. 1005, 17:59–64 (“In some implementations, the sensor is moved about the subject during image capture to collect image data from different orientations relative to the subject. For example, a single camera may be rotated or slid slightly or multiple cameras at different positions may be used for image capture.”). Rotating a camera around a user does not change the distance of the camera from the user. At the hearing Petitioner, instead, focused specifically on the use of the word “slid” in Derakhshani as indicating that Derakhshani takes a second image at a second distance. Tr. 16:9–12 (“[Petitioner’s Counsel: . . . Dr. Daft is talking about some of the terms that Derakhshani is using. For example, the term slid and shown in the images, he talks about how slid refers to the different distances between the sensor and the user.”). We determine that it is more likely that the word “slid,” as used in the relevant portion of Derakhshani, further describes the rotation of the camera about the user. Derakhshani indicates as much by describing that both rotating and sliding the camera are examples of how the camera sensor is “moved about the subject during image capture.” Derakhshani, 17:60–61. Thus, sliding the camera does not necessarily disclose moving the camera to a second distance from the subject.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,776,471 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,776,471
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther

    “On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,421,713
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00311 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–11, and 17–22 are unpatentable as obvious over grounds using Mazumder and Mori; grounds relying on Henke fail because Henke is not analogous art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printers including remote control of rapid fabrication systems.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–42). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional years of experience could substitute for an advanced-level degree (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” PO Resp. 11–12. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of either of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

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

    “There is also evidence that supports Petitioner’s proposed construction, under which a user interface may display both the image and the projection if it displays them at different times. This evidence includes statements in the specification that describe displaying an image “instead” of “a rendering of a three-dimensional model” and that describe displaying a “video image and/or model projection” rather than merely a video image and a model projection. Ex. 1001, 22:43–53, 24:52–55, Figs. 5, 7. It also includes arguments in the prosecution history distinguishing Taminger on the basis of failure of disclose any display of both an image and a projection at all, rather than on the basis of failure to disclose simultaneous display of both visualizations. Ex. 1002, 160, 161. Based on our review of all the probative evidence, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports Petitioner’s view, so we construe the challenged claims as not requiring simultaneous display of the image and the projection.” slip op. at 15

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “With the problem solved by the ’324 patent defined as monitoring automated three-dimensional fabrication processes, we find that Mori is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem. Mori discloses “[a] machining status monitoring apparatus.” Ex. 1005, code (57), ¶ 43. That apparatus uses “actual CCD cameras . . . to image the workpiece.” Id. ¶ 49. It also has a “virtual image generating section” with “virtual CCD cameras” having “view points” that “match the view points of the actual CCD cameras.” Id. ¶¶ 59, 61, 62. This disclosure relates quite closely to monitoring an automated three-dimensional fabrication process and thus is at least reasonably pertinent to solving that problem. d) Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Mori is both in the same field as the ’324 patent and at least reasonably pertinent to the problem solved by the ’324 patent. Accordingly, it is analogous art to the ’324 patent.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Regarding combining the teachings of Mazumder with those of Mori, the evidence of record shows that the print head of Mazumder’s three-dimensional printer could obscure portions of the actual camera’s view of the object being printed and that displaying Mori’s virtual image of the object in addition to Mazumder’s actual image of the object “would have allowed the user to of the remote computer to monitor the progress of the object even when the actual view of the object is partially or totally obscured.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 86. c) Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, the preponderance of the evidence shows that claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Mazumder and Mori.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,562,324 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,562,324
• Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00032 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–29 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 based on the asserted combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. Petitioner submits that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including electric vehicle power management. . . . Additional industry experience or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 30–32). Patent Owner “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. For the purposes of our analysis below, we apply Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we find to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’338 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Initially, we note that “amount of charge” reflects no express limitation on the manner of expressing the “amount” or the “charge.” And the Specification uses both “desired charge percent level” and “desired charge range level” as alternative ways for a user may specify an “amount of 3 As recited in independent claims 10, 19, and 28 charge.” For example, the Specification describes that a user may specify an amount of charge by specifying a desired travel distance as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Ex. 1001, 19:49–57 (emphasis added). Therefore, “amount of charge” may also refer to a desired mileage or range. Figure 7 further demonstrates that a user may select “amount of charge” in terms of a “percent” or a “range” as shown in Petitioner’s annotated version of the pertinent portion of that figure as shown below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. First, Patent Owner’s reliance on Wonderland as announcing a rule having broad effect is misplaced. Patent Owner contends that the “Federal Circuit has confirmed that where the primary reference already includes the function of the secondary reference, an allegation to incorporate that function into the primary reference is improper hindsight and no motivation to combine exists.” Id. at 29 (citing Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 988 F.Supp. 2d 479, 498–99 (W.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd, 644 F. App'x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2016); citing Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2012))). Patent Owner’s citation to Wonderland does not support the proposition for which it is cited, namely that the Federal Circuit has “confirmed” that incorporating a function from a secondary reference into a primary reference is “improper hindsight” that precludes a motivation to combine teachings from the primary and secondary references. In Wonderland, the district court denied an accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, in part, due to its finding that genuine issues of material fact existed for the issue of whether sufficient motivation to combine prior art existed. Wonderland, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 511. The Wonderland decision does not constitute a final ruling on that issue, and the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance of the final ruling by the district court does not address the issue or reflect how the issue was resolved at trial. Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 644 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Second, Petitioner also correctly points out that although Ferro refers to wireless charging, it provides no implementation details. Ex. 1004 ¶ 36; Ex. 2003, 54:8–55:9. Ferro also describes manual options for initiating charging, Ex. 1003¶ 146 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 109), and that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply Oyobe’s vehicle sensor to allow a user to initiate Ferro’s charging methods more easily without the user having to leave the vehicle, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 151, 152. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate Oyobe’s use of a sensor to establish presence of a vehicle near a charging station into Ferro’s system.” slip op. at 20

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

    “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F.3d 1284, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Patent Owner’s argument fails to account for the level of skill and creativity of an ordinarily skilled artisan, who would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in engineering and could have easily accounted for the differences in scale depicted by Letendre’s and Donnelly’s controls. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 247–249. Accordingly, we find that Petitioner’s showing on the motivation to combine teachings of Ferro, Donnelly, and Letendre to arrive at limitation 1h is persuasive. slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,563,338 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,563,338
• SAP America, Inc. v. Cyandia, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01433 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, 11, 13, 18, 19, 23, 29, 35, and 36 are unpatentable as obvious over the PCT Publication and Austin-Lane.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing “would have had a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or the like, and/or four or more years of experience in server-based applications” and that “[a]dditional experience may make up for a lack of education and vice versa.” PO Resp. 9. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the challenged patent and prior art, we adopt it and use “skilled artisans” to refer to people with such skill at the time the invention was filed. We do not perceive a substantive distinction between the parties’ definitions, but note that Petitioner’s definition provides more detail about the capabilities of skilled artisans. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

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

    “device indicated by the session data” encompasses “determining a notification method based on” session data indicating the current state of the external device, where the current state of the device encompasses an online state as well as an offline state. See Pet. 53–54; Tr. 55:3–10 (The Board: “Are there any other states of an external device other than online or offline?” Patent Owner: “As far as I know, Your Honor, those are the only two[.]”), Tr. 65:24–66:1 (The Board: “When the claim says current state, they mean it’s online or offline?” Petitioner: “Correct.”), Tr. 20:23–21:8. The specification is consistent with the plain language of the claim in disclosing two examples of the claimed “current state,” namely, online and offline. Ex. 1101, 21:1–4. The specification discloses that the notification manager “queries session manager 456 to determine the user’s connectedness.” Id. at 21:6–8. The specification discloses that if the user is “online, notify by, for example, the user’s active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt [sic] message, call the user’s landline, call a friend of the user, and the like.” Id. at 21:1–4, 23:28–31.” slip op. at 13

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Goodrich, show written description support for providing a notification to an active external device, Patent Owner has not cited any portion of the 2009 Parent, nor any portion of the testimony of Dr. Goodrich, to show that the 2009 Parent provides written description support for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. We highlight that Paragraphs 130 and 131 of the 2011 CIP Application disclose offline notification preferences for determining a notification method by which to provide an alert to an external device based on the current state of the external device as offline. Ex. 1110 ¶¶ 130–131. Specifically, paragraphs 130 and 131 describe that: the notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 queries the configuration server 454 for the user's notification preferences and correlates these notification preferences with session manager 456 to determine the best notification method. That is, the notification manager queries the configuration server 454 and determines, for example, that the user has certain online notification preferences and certain offline notification preferences. If online, notify by, for example, the user's active session. If offline, notify by, for example, a txt message. . . . The notification manager of the eventing and alerting subsystem 452 then queries session manager 456 to determine the user's connectedness. Id. That is, if the user’s connectedness, or “current state” of the claimed external device, is offline, and the user’s offline notification preferences are “notify by txt message,” the notification manager will determine that the notification method for the external device having a current state of offline is by txt message. See id. Thus, the 2011 CIP Application describes a notification manager that queries a session manager to determine whether an external device is offline, and if the external device is offline, determines a notification method for providing an alert on the external device based on the current status of the external device as offline and the user’s offline notification preferences. Although we find this written description support for the determining limitation in the 2011 CIP Application, we do not find this written description support in the 2009 Parent.” slip op. at 25

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

    “As to the “determining a notification method” limitation (1.10), Petitioner asserts that Austin-Lane teaches determining: (1) the user device(s) to send the notification to (e.g., phone, PDA, notebook computer, desktop computer); (2) the communication protocol to use to send the notification, i.e., how to send the notification (e.g., SMTP (for email), SMS (for texts), HTTP (for web browsers)); and (3) the type of alert to provide, i.e., how to present the notification, (e.g., text, an icon, a pop-up window, a video, an email, an audible or tactile alarm), based on the current state of the at least one external device indicated by the session data (“presence information”), which may include whether and on which device(s) the user is online and/or whether and on which applications the user has an active session. Id. at 53 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 4, 5, 29, 32, 33, 39, 46, 48, 61, 79, Fig. 1). We highlight that paragraph 61 of Austin-Lane discloses that: The type preferences 650 may include preferences for various notification types. . . . [A]uction alert #1 660 defines the following delivery precedence 663: (1) a web browser (if the user is online), (2) an IM client (if the user is online), (3) a mobile phone #1, (4) a PDA, (5) a mobile phone #2, (6) a pager, and (7) an email inbox. Ex. 1105 ¶ 61; see id. ¶¶ 74–77 (Describing that one of several notification methods for delivering an alert to a user’s device is determined based on the current state of the user’s device as online or offline). Thus, Austin-Lane describes determining a notification method by which to provide an alert on an external device based on the current state of the external device as online as well as offline.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,751,948 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 8,751,948
• Adobe Inc. v. Jonathan E. JaffeNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01352 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6 were not shown unpatentable under any asserted §103 ground because the references did not teach monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and memory.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The Institution Decision adopted and applied Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill because Petitioner’s “definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings” slip op. at 11

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

    “The parties present various claim construction arguments, disputing the meaning of three limitations recited in claim 1: “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory”; “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor”; and “based on.” See Pet. 9–14; PO Resp. 5–12; Pet. Reply 4–9; PO Sur-reply 4–11. For purposes of this Decision, we do not need to discuss the construction of “based on.” 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)). As explained below, this Decision turns on whether Glass or Rieger discloses limitation [1c] reciting “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–66; see infra §§ II.C.2, II.E.1, II.F. That limitation recites an element which overlaps with the earlier-recited limitation “a sensor, which is tightly coupled to said memory.” To reach our decision, we need only provide a limited discussion of two of the parties’ claim construction arguments. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 13

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

    “said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Ex. 1001, 20:65–21:2. Although Petitioner points out that the limitation does not expressly recite “‘specifically’ monitoring the tight coupling” (Pet. Reply 8), the structure of the clause suggests that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. At a high level, the limitation is straightforward in its recitation that the integrity being monitored is “of the tight coupling” (Ex. 1001, 20:65–66 (emphasis added)), plainly suggesting that the tight coupling is specifically monitored. More granularly, breaking the relevant clause down to its grammatical parts, the clause recites a gerund (“monitoring”) acting on a direct object (“the integrity”) which is modified by a prepositional phrase (“of the tight coupling”). Notably, the object of the preposition (“of”) is “the tight coupling.” Altogether, this reads that the integrity being monitored is specifically of the tight coupling. Also, the claim recites that “if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity.” Therefore, from the claim language we know that the “integrity” of the tight coupling is something that may be “compromised,” which is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction of determining whether the physical coupling has been “accessed or disturbed.” Petitioner’s interpretation effectively inserts additional language into the limitation such that the limitation includes monitoring the integrity of a device containing or surrounding the tight coupling, such as a camera (or camera housing), e.g., “monitoring the integrity of a camera that includes the tight coupling.” But, because the plain reading and the structure of the limitation reads that it is specifically the tight coupling’s integrity—not another physical structure, like a camera—which is being monitored, a monitored is not consistent with the language of the claim. See PO Resp. 9 (arguing that “Petitioner’s construction is improper because the claim language explicitly requires monitoring the physical coupling between the memory and the sensor as opposed to some third structure” (emphasis omitted)).” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “package 50 does not specifically monitor the integrity of the coupling between Glass’s sensor and the memory and, instead, argues that Glass detects tampering of all “the components and interconnections contained in that packaging,” e.g., control logic 44, cropper 46, compressor 47, MUX 45, code generator 48, and the various interconnections between those components. See Pet. Reply 16; Ex. 1005, 5:13–41. As explained above, we construe “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor” to mean determining whether the physical 7 Petitioner does not assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Glass’s device in any way; Petitioner solely argues that Glass teaches limitation [1c], based on Petitioner’s proposed claim construction. See Pet. 30–32 (“Glass discloses this limitation.”); Pet. Reply 16–17 (“Glass and Rieger disclose the ‘monitoring’ step.”). disturbed, which specifically requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory. See supra § II.C.2. As we agree with Patent Owner that this limitation requires monitoring the physical coupling between the sensor and the memory, monitoring Glass’s tamper resistant package 50 does not teach or disclose “monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor.” Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner fails to show that Glass teaches or suggests [1c] monitoring the integrity of the tight coupling between said memory and said sensor when said at least one internal and unique parameter is generated, and, if said integrity is compromised, then also providing an indication of said compromised integrity, as required by claim 1. Consequently, we determine that Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Glass.8” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 6,757,828 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,757,828

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.