- Google LLC v. Eyesmatch Ltd.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00296 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“December 18, 2012, would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer engineering, or a closely related field such as computer science, and two years of work experience with image capture and processing systems or related fields.” Pet. 7 (citing Karam Decl. ¶ 91). Petitioner adds that “[a] person with less and/or different education, but more relevant practical experience, or vice versa, may also meet this standard.” Id. According to Petitioner, [t]he prior art also evidences such level of skill.” Id. Patent Owner states that it “applies Petitioners’ proposed level of skill for purposes of this Response.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Forsyth Decl. ¶¶ 53–54). For this Decision, we adopt the formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner and applied by Patent Owner as consistent with the prior art before us in this proceeding.10” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Post-institution, Patent Owner invites us to construe limitation 1[f]’s recitation of “mirror tracking mode” and limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.” PO Resp. 9–14. Regarding the latter, Patent Owner explains that “[i]n the District Court Litigation, ‘adaptive transformation mapping’ was construed as ‘continuously variable transformation mapping’ and ‘transformation mapping’ was construed as a ‘selected set of image transformations.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 2008, 14, 37; Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 25, 27). Patent Owner does not, however, identify any way that those claim constructions affect our analysis of the parties’ patentability disputes. We find it unnecessary in resolving the parties’ patentability disputes to construe expressly limitation 1[c]’s recitation of “adaptive transformation mapping.”” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Eyesmatch Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Nov 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00810 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1–6 and 10–12 over Rosenberg and Park, and claims 3, 4, 7–9, and 11–18 over Rosenberg, Park, and Geisner.
RulingsFinal written decision- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Turning to the substantive issues, we find the District Court’s “mirror tracking mode” construction to be well-reasoned and supported by the record, and we therefore adopt that construction and its reasoning. As the District Court points out, both the “double the distance” and “same size” aspects of its construction are expressly discussed in the ’109 patent, which is incorporated in the ’110 patent. See Ex. 2008, 16 (citing Ex. 1021, 2:5–27, Figs. 5A, 5B), 40 (citing “same reasons set forth regarding the term ‘it appears to mimic a reflection of a mirror’” in support of construction of “mirror tracking mode”). So, too, is “flipping” or reversing of the image disclosed. Id. at 17 (citing Ex. 1021, 14:46–51, 15:41–47), 40.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“persuasively address limitation 1[f]’s “mirror tracking mode.” In particular, Petitioner does not address persuasively the requirement, as explained in Section II.B above, that mirror tracking mode involves processing camera-captured images in a way that “maintains roughly the same size regardless of the user movement.” At odds with this requirement, Petitioner founds its case on an assertion that “Haan teaches the claimed mirror tracking mode” because “if the viewer is within 35 cm of the camera, a tracking mode is entered, applying resizing transformation.” Pet. 44 (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, 80–82, 90–94, 97; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 205–210). The resizing transformation Petitioner references actually involves magnifying the user’s image by an amount that changes based on the user’s position relative to the camera, quite the opposite of maintaining image size regardless of the user movement. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 75–76, Fig. 8. Thus, Petitioner’s initial position is unpersuasive. Petitioner’s shift to Haan’s “reflective mirror mode and conventional mirror period in the dual mode” is also unavailing. Reply 8. Consistent with Patent Owner’s arguments, Petitioner does not provide persuasive evidence that these operating states of Haan’s device involve any processing of camera-captured images. Sur-reply 13–14. To the contrary, Haan suggests that anytime its device provides an unmagnified image, it comes from a reflection off a physical reflective surface. See, e.g., Ex.1005 ¶ 76 (“This can be done for instance by using the device as a simple mirror, i.e. not displaying an image on the display device, but using the device in the reflective mode.”) (emphasis added), ¶ 92 (“a simple reflective mode, to act as a mirror”), ¶ 29 (“for a first range of positions, no image is displayed, whereby the reflective layer acts as a mirror, and for a second range of positions, the recorded image is displayed.”) (emphasis added). We also find unpersuasive Petitioner’s Reply arguments based on Haan’s disclosure of smoothly transitioning from “using the device as a simple mirror” (i.e., using a physical reflecting surface) to displaying a magnified image. Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76, 80). To the extent this may establish a point around the transition at which Haan’s system displays an image with relatively little magnification, it does not establish that Haan teaches, suggests, or renders obvious holding the displayed size roughly constant, “regardless of the user movement.” Indeed, given Haan’s focus on helping the user see things more clearly with image magnification, Petitioner’s argument that it would have been obvious to hold the size of the image constant is not persuasive. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶ 4. Thus, on the whole, Petitioner’s shifting, scattered arguments do not persuasively address limitation 1[f]. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois. And Petitioner’s arguments and evidence addressing claims 2–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 do not cure the foregoing deficiencies in the challenge of claim 1. Pet. 46–52. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that any of claims 1–6, 10–12, 16, and 17 would have been obvious over Haan and Francois.” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“We do not agree. Petitioner demonstrates persuasively that a person of ordinary skill would have combined these references “to correct image distortions and provide a more realistic mirror image.” Pet. 52–55; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 242–249. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner that by specifically disclosing “flipping” the image, Rosenberg is discouraging or teaching away from performing other transformations to achieve its objective of “replicat[ing] the performance of a standard household mirror.” See PO Resp. 35, 38–39 (Patent Owner asserting lack of motivation to combine the references). A reference may be said to “teach away” “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” Galderma Lab'ys, L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., 737 F.3d 731, 738 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed.Cir.2009)). “A reference does not teach away, however, if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Id. Further, when conducting an obviousness analysis, the Board must consider a prior art reference “not only for what it expressly teaches, but also for what it fairly suggests.” Bradium Techs. LLC v. Iancu, 923 F.3d 1032, 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 383 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). We are not convinced that the references before us “teach away” from performing the other transformations. In sum, we find for the reasons given that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that to a person of ordinary skill, Rosenberg alone or with Park teaches or suggests limitation 1[f].” slip op. at 44
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“shows by a preponderance of the evidence that limitations 1[c] and 1[e] are taught or suggested by Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; PO Resp. 39–40; Reply 19–20; Sur-reply 19. Petitioner persuades us that limitations 1[c] and 1[e], would have been obvious over Rosenberg and Park, in combination. Pet. 58–64; Reply 19–20. Patent Owner’s counter arguments are unavailing for multiple reasons. Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they improperly attack Rosenberg’s teachings individually, rather than addressing Petitioner’s combination of the references. PO Resp. 39–40; Sur-reply 19. This is fatal to Patent Owner’s arguments. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Moreover, Petitioner presents persuasive arguments and evidence that the references, in combination, teach limitations 1[c] and 1[e], including persuasive evidence that the references’ tilting, resizing, and zooming meet the claim limitations’ “adaptive transformation mapping . . . to generate modified images that appear to be captured from a different point of view” that “corresponds to an image taken from a different angle and a different distance.” Pet. 58–64 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67, 253–268; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26–28, 50, 52, 61, 75 ; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 50–51, 59, Figs. 6A–6B, 7, 8, 14, 15; Ex. 1019, 16–20; Ex. 1021, 2:19–27, 17:19–24, 21:60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Reply 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 253–268; Ex. 1021, 17:17–23; Ex. 2012, 63:13–22, 111:13–21). Regarding tilting, after noting the ’110 patent’s disclosure (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of performing tilt transformations (Pet. 10–11), Petitioner advances persuasive evidence that Park discloses such a tilting transformation, thereby teaching the claimed “different angle” (id. at 61–63). Regarding resizing and zooming, citing extensive discussion in the ’110 patent (incorporated from the ’109 patent) of resizing and/or zooming to address the effects of varying distance between an object and a camera, Petitioner and Dr. Karam explain that the prior art’s zooming and resizing meet the claimed “different distance.” Pet. 63 (Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11); Ex. 1003 ¶ 265 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:26–28; Ex. 1021, 17:19–23, 21:57–60, 23:65–24:9, 25:46–48, 30:4–11, Fig. 11). In its counterarguments, Patent Owner suggests that zooming and resizing do not account for “occlusion effects,” but Patent Owner does not persuasively tie this argument to the ’110 patent, failing to cite any portion of the ’110 patent that evinces its invention addresses such effects. PO Resp. 23–25, 39–40.” slip op. at 39
Patent outcomesUS 8,982,110 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,982,110 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00287 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 9–12, 14–16, and 22–24 are unpatentable under § 103 over Riepling and Meisels, or Riepling, Manzano, and Meisels; claim 13 was disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art as reflected by the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579. We apply Petitioner’s articulation.” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“construction of “representation of the at least one file.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a file is not the file itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ʼ906 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6B reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6B depicts representations of two files: “FamilyHistory.docx” and “XmasLetter-2012.pdf.” The ’906 application specifically states: [A] located data resources dialog UI element 630b . . . includes a presentation space 632b for presenting a user detectable representation of some or all of the data objects identified in the received data object identification response from . . . second node 504. Ex. 2004 ¶ 147 (emphasis added). The entries in the above figure are representations of the files, not the files themselves. The actual files are stored in the file system storage associated with the user’s node, and only retrieved if the user selects the “Access” or “Access All” elements. Id. ¶ 148. Patent Owner misconstrues the claim 22 language, “a first representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the at least one server” and “a second representation of the at least one file, in a location among one or more folders, that is stored at the first node.” Patent Owner infers from this language that the representation is itself a file that is “in a location among one or more folders” and is stored on a server or at a node. PO Resp. 17. Not so — the representation of a file, such as “FamilyHistory.docx” in the above figure, is not stored at a server or node, but rather is simply displayed on a screen. As the ’906 application states: A representation of a program entity may be stored and/or otherwise maintained in a presentation space. As used in this document, the term “presentation space” refers to a storage region allocated and/or otherwise provided for storing presentation information . . . . A screen of a display, for example, is a presentation space.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“because (i) Riepling and Meisels are from the same field of endeavor, directed to sharing files over a network; (ii) the combination would have yielded expected, predictable results, using known and routine computer programming principles, to modify Riepling’s system to generate an electronic message that includes a link pointing to an uploaded file; (iii) the combination would have been readily implemented given Meisels’ teachings of inserting, in an electronic message, a link to a shared location where a file is uploaded; and (iv) the combination was suggested because Meisels expressly disclosed a benefit of sending an email message with a link, to avoid multiple copies of a file from existing at multiple locations, and sending links to one file to multiple recipients and managing permissions on an individual recipient basis. Pet. 67–70 (citing Ex. 1107, Fig. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4, 19; Ex. 1108, Fig. 4, ¶¶ 1, 3, 41–45, 56; Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 194–198). In addition, for reasons similar to the motivation basis, Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the combination. Id. at 70–71 (citing Mowry Decl. ¶¶ 199–200). Other than its arguments directed to ’520 claim requirement 9[l], discussed below in Section III.D.4.d), Patent Owner does not further address Petitioner’s arguments regarding the combination of Riepling and Meisels. As discussed in that section, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s expert’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have applied the document link teachings of Meisels to modify Riepling. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Riepling and Meisels in the manner argued by Petitioner.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We agree with Petitioner that set content field 325 of Riepling teaches or suggests claim requirement 9[b]. As Petitioner’s expert explains, the fact that field 325 has an appearance identical to that of fields 321–324 in Figure 3, which fields are specifically stated to be “text field[s],” strongly suggests that field 325 is also a text field. Mowry Decl. ¶ 70; see also Reply 10–11. Patent Owner’s suggestion that field 325 could be a dropdown list or other type of field is contradicted by the fact that it does not show the typical dropdown arrow associated with a dropdown box, or other typical non-textbox appearance such as the checkbox appearance of field 320. Moreover, in the example of Figure 3, the “Set Content” entry is “audio,” which is a file description. Reply 10. The fact that “JPEG” is checked in field 320 is not inconsistent with the “audio” entry in field 325, given that, as Riepling explains, “it may be possible for audio files such as MP3 files to contain non-MP3 data, such as JPEG data embedded within the MP3 files.” Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1107 ¶ 32; Mowry 2nd Decl. ¶ ¶ 101–104). Also, there is no reason why the Figure 5 response that gives the uploader the ability to provide additional description of the file being uploaded is inconsistent with the ability of the requester first describing what type of file is being requested via field 325 in Figure 3. Id. at 11–12. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim requirement 9[b].” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Motion Offense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 30, 2025 · IPR2024-00286 · APJ Norman H Beamer · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 17–21 are unpatentable under § 103 over Houston and Garcia; the Board did not reach the alternative grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We conclude that there is no basis for Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “representation of the at least one folder.” Petitioner is correct that a representation of a folder is not the folder itself, but (in keeping with the ordinary meaning of “representation”) is rather some sign or symbol that stands for the folder. Reply 2. This is confirmed by the explicit example of a representation of a folder in the ’635 application, illustrated in the portion of Figure 6D reproduced below (highlighted here for purposes of explanation). This portion of Figure 6D depicts representations of several folders, including the highlighted “Music” folder. The ’635 application specifically states: A folder content pane UI element 648d in navigation window UI element 646d is presented including representations of one or more data objects[11] at a location, identified in a path UI element 650d. A pointer UI element 652d illustrates a drag and drop operation of a “Music” folder represented in contents pane UI element 648d, dropped on edit window UI element 602d. Ex. 2004 ¶ 123 (emphasis added). The word “Music” in the above figure is a representation of a folder, not the folder itself. The actual folder is an entity in a file system that stores files (in the case of a “Music” folder, presumably MP3 or WAV files, or the like).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are not pertinent to Petitioner’s proffered combination of Houston with Garcia as applied to the remaining challenged claims 17–21. As discussed further below, Petitioner relies on Garcia as supplementing Houston for details regarding the requirements of generating and sending an email with a link to a folder but without a file attachment, and for synchronizing folders and providing interfaces for display of shared folders. Pet. 26–27, 36–39, 57–60. For the challenged claims, Petitioner does not need to rely on the combination to modify Houston’s system such that, when an icon for a shared folder is created in Houston’s interface at an invited user’s client, the client does not store a file in the shared folder — 14 For this argument and others, Patent Owner cites for additional support portions of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/233,787. PO Resp. 18, 42, 46; Sur-Reply 9–12. This application is designated in Houston as a related application, and incorporated by reference therein. Ex. 1003, code (60), 1:6–10. We denied as untimely Patent Owner’s request to belatedly add this application to the record. Ex. 3002; Paper 39. Even accepting Patent Owner’s representations of the relied-on disclosures in that application, those disclosures are cumulative to Houston’s criticisms of systems that store documents remotely, and are irrelevant for the same reasons as discussed herein with respect to those Houston disclosures. that aspect of the Houston/Garcia combination is only relevant to claims 1–8, which have been disclaimed. Id. at 40–41; Ex. 2045.15 Thus, Patent Owner’s argument that Houston teaches away from combining with Garcia to delay storing a file when a folder is shared is not applicable to Petitioner’s challenges of claim 17–21, in light of our conclusion set forth above in Section III.C rejecting Patent Owner’s proposed construction of claim 17. The fact that the Houston system ensures the availability of synchronized local copies of files at each user’s local system and criticizes systems that store documents remotely, such as in Garcia, is irrelevant to those claims. On this record, there is nothing about that particular difference in the approaches of Houston and Garcia that would support a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from adopting Houston to take advantage of the teachings in Garcia regarding use of email and folder interfaces. In sum, Patent Owner focuses on a specific irrelevant detail of Houston regarding local storage of files, whereas Petitioner relies on other features of the combination of Houston and Garcia. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“To give substantial weight to objective indicia of nonobviousness such as commercial success, a proponent must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the claimed invention. ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 838 F.3d 1214, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nexus is a legally and factually sufficient connection between the objective evidence and the claimed invention, such that the objective evidence should be considered in determining nonobviousness. Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “[T]here is no nexus unless the evidence presented is ‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” ClassCo, 838 F.3d at 1220 (quoting Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “[T]he patentee retains the burden of proving the degree to which evidence of secondary considerations tied to a product is attributable to a particular claimed invention.” Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1378. The Federal Circuit has held that “if the marketed product embodies the claimed features, and is coextensive with them, then a nexus is presumed and the burden shifts to the party asserting obviousness to present evidence to rebut the presumed nexus.” Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d 1120, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “A finding that a presumption of nexus is inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations”; rather, “the patent owner is still afforded an opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention.’” Fox Factory, 994 F.3d at 1373–74 (quoting In re Huang, 100 F.3d 125, 140 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “Ultimately, the fact finder must weigh the [objective indicia] evidence presented in the context of whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 33 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (citing WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1331–32 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).” slip op. at 23
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“However, as Petitioner argues above, Houston discloses that a client can provide an email to the server to invite others to share a folder, and Houston explains that “attaching files [to emails is] cumbersome for many computer users.” Pet. 25–26 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4, 1:41–42, 3:40–43, 7:50–51). From this, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious for the email invitation to notify how to access the folder, rather than sending the folder contents itself. Id. Petitioner further argues that the claim 17[d] requirement would have been obvious over the combination of Houston and Garcia given the disclosure in Garcia of sharing a folder by sending an email with a link to the folder, instead of an attachment. Id. at 27, 57 (citing Ex. 1004, Figs. 9, 11–12, 10:32–34, 10:38–40, 11:39–43, cl. 3). We are persuaded that the record supports Petitioner’s arguments regarding this claim requirement. Both Houston alone, and the combination of Houston and Garcia, teach or suggest sending an email with a link to a folder to be shared, rather than the folder contents. Only if the recipient clicks on the link are the contents of the folder shared. Ex. 1004, 11:29–31. The act of clicking on the link in the email after the email is received is the required “initiation of the communication” that must occur separately from the email itself, as required by claim 17[d]: “causing generation of at least one email [that] does not include a file attachment, for permitting avoidance of at least one file from being communicated to and stored at the second node until an initiation of the communication of the at least one file by a user of the second node is detected and the communication commences via at least one server that stores the at least one file” (emphasis added). It does not matter if Houston or Garcia automatically downloads local copies of files when a recipient clicks on the email link, because that is a separate step following the step of claim 17[d].” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 11,611,520 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,611,520 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00214 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster; the Board did not reach the instituted Orsini anticipation or obviousness grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention of the ’609 patent, “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use,” and that “[a] higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that Petitioner’s challenge is based on the parties’ proposed district court constructions for “data set.” See Pet. 65–66. But neither party proposes a construction for “data chunks” in this proceeding. Notably, the 83-column Specification of the ’609 patent itself does not use the term “data chunks.” Even so, the meaning of “data chunks” is readily apparent from the plain language: the data chunks are generated “based on a data set,” and the claim defines the steps that comprise the chunk generation, including the relationship between the chunks and the data set. See Ex. 1001, 83:15–30; In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (In all aspects of claim construction, “the name of the game is the claim.” (quoting Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims–American Perspectives, 21 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990))).” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues, and we agree, that “it does not need to show that there was a known problem with the prior art system in order to articulate the required rational underpinning for the proposed [modification].” Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1002–03 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cited in Pet. Reply 14–15). Petitioner persuasively explains: [C]ontent-owner storage would not negate benefits of content-service providers (“CSPs”) storing Foster-encrypted content. [The skilled artisan] knew CSPs (e.g., cable-TV companies) often purchased/licensed content from content owners and then securely stored it before delivering to recipients. [Ex. 1099], 84-94. CSPs typically and beneficially encrypted and stored that content for repeated use (e.g., downloads by different customers) – rather than repeatedly encrypting it on-the-fly – and for backup purposes. Petition, 77-78 (citing EX1045, EX1050, EX1059-EX1060; [Ex. 1003], ¶¶206-213); [Ex. 1111], ¶¶102-114 (citing EX1073, [0043] (VOD “pre-encrypt[s]” and “stores the content”); EX1097, 2:31-53 (“real-time encryption [for VOD] poses much greater cost and space issues”); EX1075, 1:51-67; EX1105, [0034]-[0037]; EX1080, 2-7). Pet. Reply 15; see id. at 16–17 (“EX1060, e.g., describes prior-art VOD systems where CSP intermediary ‘servers . . . store all movies.’” (citing Ex. 1060 ¶¶ 7–8 (cited in Pet. 77)) (alteration in original)). As for Patent Owner’s allegation that Petitioner’s proposed modification to Foster would “compromise” Foster’s security, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that, “[b]eyond a conclusory expert declaration, [Patent Owner] offers no evidence that hacking risks or overall storage requirements would increase by storing content at a CSP/intermediary rather than a content owner.” Pet. Reply 17. Petitioner also argues, and we agree, “even if it required ‘increased cost and complexity’ to make CSP storage more secure, that does ‘not show that [the technique] was unknown or could not have practical applications,’ and thus does not support non-obviousness.” Id. at 17–18 (quoting In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 700–701 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); id. at 18 (“[I]t is a commonplace fact that design decisions entail making tradeoffs among multiple objectives.” (quoting Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 4944471, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021)); see Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine [or to modify].”). Although Patent Owner disputes whether a rational reason exists to modify Foster to arrive at the subject limitation (discussed above), Patent Owner otherwise does not dispute reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See generally PO Resp. 32–56.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 11,068,609 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,068,609 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 16, 2025 · IPR2024-00215 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Foster and Hayhurst; the Board did not reach the anticipation and obviousness grounds based on Orsini.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with three years of experience in the area of securing data from unauthorized access or use.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37–38). Petitioner also asserts that a “higher level of education may substitute for less experience.” Id. 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. Patent Owner submitted the Declaration of Dr. Rubin in support of its Response, and in that Declaration, Dr. Rubin accepted Petitioner’s definition. Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 20–21. For the reasons given, we apply the same level of ordinary skill in the art that we did in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 4.” slip op. at 6
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“See Section II.C.3.a.ii supra. Although Dr. Rubin calls Hayhurst’s security benefits “ancillary” (Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109, quoted in PO Resp. 40), this does not align with Hayhurst (see Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 2, 7, 8, 21). For example, Hayhurst describes the security measures in the Technical Field section (id. ¶ 2) and the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶¶ 7, 8). Hayhurst also discusses piracy deterrence in both the Summary of the Invention section (id. ¶ 8) and the invention’s detailed description (id. ¶ 21). Because Dr. Rubin does not give sufficient weight to Hayhurst’s discussion of piracy deterrence and security, we do not credit Dr. Rubin’s testimony on this issue. See Ex. 2033 ¶¶ 108–109. Thus, we agree with Petitioner that Hayhurst is reasonably pertinent to the network-security problem that the inventors were trying to solve. See Reply 5–6.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“Neither party explicitly proposed constructions during trial, and we do not see the need for construing any terms in this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“3. Claim 1 a. Analogous Art “To be considered within the prior art for purposes of the obviousness analysis, a reference must be analogous.” Circuit Check Inc. v. QXQ Inc., 795 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Wang Lab. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 864 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,452,854 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,452,854 - Apple, Inc. v. Omni Medsci Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 14, 2025 · IPR2021-00453 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board determined claims 1–23 unpatentable, finding claims 3–6 and 8–14 obvious under the asserted combinations and leaving the prior findings on other claims intact.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“No appeal was taken as to claims 1, 2, 7, and 15–23. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s Mandate, we have reviewed the merits and determine 3–6 and 8–14 are unpatentable, and recognizing that all other claims have previously been determined to be unpatentable, we determine that claims 1–23 are unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Denied
“Our mandate is to consider the argument the Court determined we did not consider in the Petitioner Reply, which argument, as each party acknowledges, both parties had the opportunity to discuss in the briefs that are in our current record. Under the circumstances, we determine that no additional briefing is required to carry out that mandate.” slip op. at 4
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“In our Final Decision, we determined that the term “identify an object” in claims 3 and 8 is distinguished from the term “detect an object,” e.g. as in claim 1. Final Dec. 8–10. The Court affirmed our construction of “identify an object” to mean “to recognize or establish an object as being a particular thing.” Fed. Cir. Dec. 10. The Court remanded, however, for further consideration of a “properly raised” argument Petitioner advanced in the Petitioner Reply with respect to our construction, referred to by the Federal Circuit as “the alternative argument.”. Id. at 2, 13.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner counterargues that it is not required to show why a person of ordinary skill would have considered every permutation of these references together and that it provided specific reasons for including features of Isaacson into Lisogurski’s device. Pet. Sur-reply 24–25. According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill would have had reason to incorporate Isaacson’s sensor (an arrangement of LEDs and detectors) into Lisogurski’s device, which taught that any known sensor layout could be used. Id. (citing Ex.1011, 17:39–45; Ex.1003 ¶¶ 239–240). Petitioner further argues that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have looked to Isaacson because it discloses a known arrangement for that the sensor component of Lisogurski’s device, and because it also taught solutions to potential problems identified in Lisogurski (e.g., with skin pigmentation). Id. (citing Pet. 68–69; Ex.1003 ¶ 243; Ex.1063, 7:59–62, Fig. 1).” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 10,517,484 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,517,484 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Daedalus Prime LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-01333 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–24 are unpatentable as obvious over Sutardja, Sutardja and Rychlik, or Sutardja and Carmack; the Board did not reach the Mathieson-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We regarded Petitioner’s description as consistent with the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). Thus, for the purpose of our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Institution Dec. 14–15.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“We decline to “throw out” Dr. Horst’s testimony for several reasons. First and foremost, Patent Owner has not moved or otherwise sought to exclude his testimony, or even filed an objection. Hearing Tr. 46:19–47:1. Thus, the issue of whether the testimony should be excluded is not properly before us. Further, Petitioner asserts that “[t]his distinction is irrelevant.” Pet. Reply 2. We agree. Patent Owner has not pointed to any opinion by Dr. Horst that turns on the alleged “flaw” in the definition of the person of ordinary skill. Id. at 46:19–48:3. Finally, there is no prejudice. Patent Owner’s expert used the definition proposed by Patent Owner in his analysis. See Brogioli Decl. ¶ 25. Nor could Patent Owner show us with specificity any place in the record where resolving this dispute would make a difference in this case. Hearing Tr. 46:3–47:3. For the reasons given, we do not see the need to modify our definition of a person of ordinary skill or to exclude or give little weight to Dr. Horst’s opinions.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionGranted
“operating system.” PO Resp. 12–13. Relying on the Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Patent Owner contends that “[a]n ‘operating system’ is, and would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to be, ‘The software that controls the allocation and usage of hardware resources such as memory, central processing unit (CPU) time, disk space, and peripheral devices.’” PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 2007, 378). Dr. Brogioli’s testimony generally supports this construction, as does Dr. Horst’s. See Brogioli Dep. 8:17–22; Horst Dep. 32:3–8. Petitioner responds that the term “should be understood in accordance with its plain meaning,” and therefore does not require construction, but does not dispute Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Pet. Reply 2. For the reasons given, we adopt Patent Owner’s construction for “operating system.” However, we do not see this construction as dispositive of the central issue of whether the operating system in Sutardja controls the transition of the cores. See Section II.D.1, infra. slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“PMS module do not ‘control’ the core switching module or the hardware on which it runs. Instead, the kernel and the PMS module only make system calls to the core switching module.” PO Resp. 27. We disagree that this is not sufficient control to meet this claim limitation. As Dr. Horst’s testimony (quoted supra) explains, the PMS module and kernel modules “trigger a transition” by generating a call to the hypervisor module or a core switching module. Horst Decl. ¶ 124. Patent Owner’s argument fails because it assumes the claims require direct control, when the claims recite no such restriction (nor have we been asked by either party to construe the claims as such).” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,049,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,049,080 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2024-00131 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the Board did not reach the alternative Kates-505 grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, along with at least two years of professional experience in sensors, controls, and/or wireless communications.” Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 44–47). Petitioner further contends that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally PO Resp. We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’887 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the second wherein clause replaces the word “suspended” with “that would otherwise occur is stopped.” PO Resp. 8–9 (“emphasis omitted”). This phrase is not part of claim 1. Nonetheless, adopting Patent Owner’s proposed construction could potentially render the second wherein clause superfluous because the first wherein clause does not require transmission of the most recent reading to occur when the change is within the predetermined range. Consequently, the language of claim 1 does not require or suggest Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“recent reading of the indicator stored in the memory during a period of a transmission interval in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition outside a predetermined range.” Ex. 1001, 14:63–67. This limitation also requires that “during the period of the transmission interval” the transmission “is suspended in response to detecting a change in the sensed condition within the predetermined range.” Id. at 14:67–15:4. Petitioner, therefore, must show that Kates-711 discloses a transceiver configured to transmit information or suspend transmission of the information during a “period” within a “transmission interval.” For the recited “transmission interval,” Petitioner contends that Kates’s “periodic intervals of ‘periodic monitoring’ is a [1.e] ‘transmission interval,’ during which there is a [1.e] ‘transmission period’ that includes a ‘report block.’” Pet. Reply 9. We agree with Petitioner for the following reasons. Kates describes the process shown in Figure 7 as follows: FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing one embodiment of operation of the sensor unit 102 wherein periodic monitoring is provided. In FIG. 7, a power up block 701 is followed by an initialization block 702, After initialization, the sensor unit 102 enters a low-power sleep mode. If a fault occurs during the sleep mode (e.g., the tamper sensor is activated), then the process enters a wake-up block 704 followed by a transmit fault block 705. If no fault occurs during the sleep period, then when the specified sleep period has expired, the process enters a block 706 where the sensor unit 102 takes a sensor reading from the sensor(s) 201. The sensor data is subsequently sent to the monitoring computer 13 in a report block 707. After reporting, the sensor unit 102 enters a listen block 708 where the sensor unit 102 listens for a relatively short period of time for instructions from monitoring computer 708. If an instruction is received, then the sensor unit 102 performs the instructions, otherwise, the process returns to the sleep block 703. Ex. 1004, 15:50–65. Based on this description of Figure 7, we find that Kates’s report block 707 corresponds to the recited “a period of the transmission interval” because it is a period of time when “sensor data is . . . sent to the monitoring computer.” Ex. 1004, 15:61. Further, block 707 is within an interval of “periodic monitoring” i.e., the process loop shown in Figure 7 beginning at block 703 and comprising steps 703, 706, 707, 708, 709, 710 and back to block 703. See also Ex. 1052 ¶ 22 (Dr. Neikirk testifying “each of [Kates’s] periodic intervals during which the ‘periodic monitoring’ process occurs is a ‘transmission interval’ . . . and the report block’ that occurs within this process is a transmission period.” (citations omitted)).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887 - Copeland Comfort Control LP / Ecobee Technologies Ulc v. Ollnova Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00626 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 are unpatentable as obvious over the Kates-711 grounds; the alternative Kates-505 grounds were not reached.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“For these reasons, in order to resolve the present controversy, we determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “suspended”, as used in the challenged claims, encompasses both where a transmission that would otherwise occur is suspended by an action such as overriding a flag and where a transmission is not made because there is no change in an indicator or a change does not exceed a limit. Upon review the parties’ respective contentions, we determine that no other express constructions of any other claim term is required for this decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“2. Analysis Motivation to Combine and Reasonable Expectation of Success Petitioner contends that “[w]hile Kates-711’s teachings not only render obvious but also disclose the ‘memory’ elements ([1.d]-[1.e], [5]), Hitt provides explicit teachings of a memory storing information as claimed.” Pet. 42. Petitioner further contends that Hitt’s memory 155 “stores instructions for execution by processor 156 and also stores periodically sampled sensor data for retrieval by the processor for processing and/or transmission.” Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 112; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 65, 67– 68). According to Petitioner, an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have been motivated to modify Kates-711’s sensor units with Hitt’s teachings of ‘memory’ to achieve the beneficial and predictable result of utilizing a memory to securely store sensor readings.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 114). Petitioner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been further motivated to modify Kates-711 “by storing these sensor values in memory as taught by Hitt to improve reliability” in light of Hitt’s teaching that “storage of sensor values in memory . . . ensur[es] that the values are available for calculations and not unintentionally lost or erased, e.g., due to power outages or interruptions.” Id. at 44–45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 67–68). Petitioner next contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Kates-711 “discloses that its controller may be a ‘conventional programmable microcontroller’; such microcontrollers were well-understood to commonly use a memory to, e.g., track data variables used for control applications.” Pet. 45 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 117). We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and contentions and find that Petitioner establishes that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kates-711 with the teachings of Hitt and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 112–117.” slip op. at 37
- BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable
“III. CONCLUSION12 Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 3–8, 14, 15, and 18 of the ’887 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 46
Patent outcomesUS 7,746,887 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,746,887
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.