- Ledup Manufacturing Group Ltd. v. Seasonal Specialties, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01258 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 9–14 are unpatentable; claims 3 and 8 are not shown unpatentable, principally because the Inoue–Smith obviousness rationale was insufficient.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenFwd mixedMixed
“found either expressly or inherently in a single prior art reference.’” King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention arranged as in the claim.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 593 F.3d 1325, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) if in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 11
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Petitioner that the fact pattern before us is analogous to Rembrandt. The rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith provided in the Petition focuses on replacing incandescent bulbs with LEDs, and includes the generic statement that “[t]he numerous record-supported advantages, set forth in Smith provide a clear motivation for use of the teachings of Smith as applied to Inoue, so as to enjoy the advantages set forth in Smith.” Pet. 47. The testimony in Dr. Schubert’s Declaration at pages 99–100 cited in support of Petitioner’s Reply arguments was not cited or otherwise referenced in the Petition. See Pet. 46–55. We find that the Petitioner’s Reply is not responsive to the Institution Decision and is improper because it presents a new rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith that was not expressed in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; CTPG § II.I. Petitioner could have presented its rationale to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23; CTPG § II.I. Accordingly, we do not consider Petitioner’s new rationale to combine the teachings of Inoue and Smith presented for the first time in the Reply. Based on the entire record, but not including Petitioner’s new rationale and newly cited support to Smith and Dr. Schubert’s testimony (Exs. 1013, 1017) presented for the first time in the Reply, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sets forth in the Petition sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the circuit of Inoue to include a light source or LED light source with a twinkling or flashing effect in view of Smith’s teachings. See Pet. 46–47, 49–50, 51–53, 55. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of independent claim 9 and dependent claims 3, 5, and 6 would have been obvious over the teachings of Inoue and Smith.” slip op. at 32
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundMotivation not foundMixed
“Based on Petitioner’s citations to Holler, Inoue, and Dr. Schubert’s testimony (Ex. 1013), we are persuaded Petitioner sets forth sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to “use the resistive value as taught by Holler in the circuit of Inoue to control the illumination of the light sources so that the other illumination devices in the serial light string will not go dark or change illumination if one of the LEDs fails or becomes disconnected.” Pet. 27; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Based on the entire record and including the reasons explained above in Section II.D.2. addressing anticipation of claim 1 by Inoue, we determine Petitioner shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claims 1 and 10 would have been obvious over Inoue and Holler. See Pet. 26–32.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“We observe that, aside from Declaration testimony of Mr. Altamura and accompanying exhibits, Patent Owner does not offer any additional evidence to establish reduction to practice. An inventor’s testimonial assertion of inventive facts requires corroboration by independent evidence. Brown v. Barbacid, 276 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The purpose of the corroboration requirement is to prevent fraud, by providing independent confirmation of the inventor’s testimony. Kridl v. McCormick, 105 F.3d 1446, 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Without the requirement of independent corroboration, there would be a great temptation to commit perjury and the adverse party would be effectively precluded from a successful rebuttal. Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1194–95 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A rule of reason applies to determining whether the inventor’s testimony has been corroborated. See id. at 1195. “The rule of reason, however, does not dispense with the requirement for some evidence of independent corroboration.” Coleman v. Dines, 754 F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Accordingly, based on the entire record, we find that Mr. Altamura’s Declaration testimony is uncorroborated. Yu is prior art to the ’252 Patent because Patent Owner is unable to establish actual reduction to practice earlier than the July 31, 2006, filing date of Yu.” slip op. at 51
Patent outcomesUS 11,096,252 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,252 - Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning and over Leaning with Klemets; claims 12–20 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its post-institution papers. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We determine that no construction of “virtual timeline” is necessary. See, e.g., 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))). Rather, as discussed below, the parties’ dispute appears to be about whether the “virtual timeline” identified by Petitioner is used to arrange the requested streamlets, as is also recited in claim 9. We address that argument below. See infra § II.D.10.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“On this record, we determine that the recitation “to achieve continuous presentation” is limiting and requires an amount of continuous (uninterrupted) playback/presentation after an upshift or downshift. The specification describes agent controller 702 determining whether to upshift based on a trigger threshold Θup, which itself is based on various factors including a current read ahead margin and a minimum safety margin. See Ex. 1001, 17:44–58. If agent controller 702 can sustain upshift quality, then it will upshift and request higher quality streams. See id. at 17:58–61. Conversely, when an upshift is not possible, agent controller 702 determines whether to downshift based a different threshold Θdown, which itself is based on the same sort of factors. See id. at 18:4–7. When the stream quality is not adequate, it downshifts. See id. at 18:7–14. These disclosures are similar to the language of claim 12, which recites “repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content at a rate sufficient for presenting the digital content as the digital content is received, . . . wherein the factor relates to a performance of the network” and “making the successive determinations whether to change the requested bit rate based on the factor to achieve continuous presentation of the digital content using the individually-requestable portions of the highest bit rate one of the copies determined receivable at that time.” Ex. 1001, 20:5–16 (emphasis added). That is, claim 12 refers to “achiev[ing] continuous presentation” based on what is “sufficient for presenting the digital content,” trading quality to ensure continuous playback.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableUnpatentable
“server comprises at least two servers and wherein at least one streamlet is requested from a first of the at least one server and at least one other streamlet is requested from a second server of the at least one server other than the first server.” Ex. 1001, 19:7–12. Petitioner references its mapping of the “at least one server” in claim 1 to Leaning’s server 1. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:15–16, 2:18–22, 2:31–32, 5:8–14, Fig. 1), 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:13–26, 9:3–7, 16:6–12), 37; see supra §§ II.D.2.b–c. Petitioner contends that, “[t]o the extent Leaning does not disclose at least two servers wherein one sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a first server and another sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a second server such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the knowledge of a [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Id. at 37. Citing the common nature of such an arrangement, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide multiple web servers containing the same sets of sub-files for streams in order to have redundancy in the system and allow for clients to establish connections with multiple servers and request a first sub-file from a first web server and, if the connection between the first web server becomes congested or the first web server otherwise fails or becomes unavailable, request a subsequent sub-file from the second web server. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1012, 108,5 Fig. 4-11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 3. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to implement Leaning’s server 1 as two servers that store different streamlets based on Dr. Houh’s uncontested testimony about system redundancy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. His testimony is backed by a contemporaneous reference about HTTP that shows requests for different objects from different servers over parallel TCP connections. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 108–09, Fig. 4-11. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Leaning.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 11,991,234 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,991,234 - Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00917 · APJ Michelle N Wormmeester · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable: claims 1 and 3–18 as obvious over Leaning, and claim 2 as obvious over Leaning and Ala-Honkola.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. “continuous playback” This term appears in independent claims 1 and 13. For example, limitation 1D of claim 1 recites “adapting the successive determinations to shift the playback quality based on the factor to achieve continuous playback of the video using the streamlets of the highest quality copy of the video that is determined to be sustainable at that time.” Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. Petitioner contends “[t]he claims’ plain language only requires that the shift in playback quality is made ‘to achieve continuous playback.’” Pet. Reply 1 (citing claim 1). According to Petitioner, “shifting quality ‘to achieve continuous playback’ is aspirational, not limiting, language.” Id. (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., 246 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Petitioner asserts that “[n]othing in the claims requires uninterrupted playback before, during, or after the shift in quality.” Id.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredMixed
“continuous playback.” We also do not rely on Exhibit 1045. Accordingly, we consider Patent Owner’s Motion to Strike in this regard to be moot. For these reasons, we do not strike Petitioner’s reply arguments or supporting evidence regarding claim construction. B. Leaning’s Clear Buffer Step Patent Owner alleges Petitioner has shifted its position on reply slip op. at 89
Patent outcomesUS 10,757,156 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,757,156 - Ceva Santé Animale S.A. / Egg-Chick Automated Technologies S.A.S et al. v. Targan, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00595 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–15 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted §103 grounds; Petitioner did not show claims 16–18 unpatentable because the angled-conveyor combination lacked a supported rationale.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “These factors are not exhaustive but are merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There is uncontested evidence in the record before us, including the ’124 patent, the Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao, and Goodwin references, and the background and qualifications of both sides expert witnesses that reflect the knowledge and experience of a POSITA, including knowledge of systems for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting. Patent Owner’s proposed skill level overlaps with Petitioner’s proposed skill level, and any differences would not alter the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed skill level with two modifications. A POSITA also could have a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Science or similar discipline, and a POSITA would be familiar with techniques for assessing and transporting poultry in an industrial setting, such as visual and/or anatomical characteristics of a chick.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“Therefore, we find that Applicant distinguished Tao from “an unrestrained chick” because in Tao’s automated system a chick is restrained—the chick is held in place—by a retainer unit on a moving platform, whereas in Applicant’s claimed system a chick is not held in place on a moving platform. We further conclude that Applicant’s reason for distinguishing the claimed invention over Tao informs the claim construction even if the “prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal . . . .” Personalized Media, 952 F.3d at 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In view of the ’124 patent claims, specification, and prosecution history, we determine “an unrestrained chick” is a chick not held in place on the moving platform and free to open its wings.” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“For the reasons given below, we find the Petition has established that Gershman discloses and teaches “a moving platform to support an unrestrained chick of a particular breed” by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“to determine a characteristic [of the chick] . . . [that] manifests in one of two or more possible states, e.g., sex (male vs. female), health (healthy vs. unhealthy), genetic mutation (present vs. not present).” Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1004, 3). The recitation of a generic “database of images” does not distinguish limitation [1.4] from the asserted combination of Gershman-Pierre, particularly in view of Pierre’s disclosure of “a computerized processing process is implemented in order to compare the captured images to reference images,” as asserted in the Petition. Ex. 1004, 3 (emphasis added); see Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1003, 2–5; Ex. 1004, 3, 5). Thus, we find that storage of Pierre’s reference images of male and female wing feathers in a database used for comparison in Gershman’s computerized digital chick image processing system would have been obvious to a POSITA and satisfies limitation [1.4].19 We agree with Petitioner that it would have been obvious and well within the skill level of a POSITA—someone with a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural, industrial, or electrical engineering and two years of experience in industrial poultry sexing and/or image processing (Resp. 20)—to store reference images as taught by Pierre in a “computerized processing” database. The rationale argued by Petitioner, to organize the collection of reference images for comparison to determine whether the characteristic of interest was present, finds direct support in Gershman and Pierre. Both references disclose comparing digital images of a chick’s wing feathers to reference data (Gershman) or reference images (Pierre) of male and female chick wing patterns. Pet. 23–24; Reply 12–13. Storing digital reference images in a database for comparison to captured digital images is, moreover, a basic and straightforward task in any computerized image processing” slip op. at 44
Patent outcomesUS 10,806,124 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,806,124 - PTAB · Apr 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00180 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Comcast would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDenied
“We do not agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s filing of three parallel petitions is grounds to deny all three petitions on that basis alone. Petitioner has complied with our guidance by filing a statement ranking the petitions. See Practice Guide, 59–60. For reasons discussed in our concurrent Decisions Denying Institution in IPR2025-00181 and IPR2025- meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”). Claim construction arguments should not be relegated to patentability arguments on the facts. warranted. Given our Decisions to Deny Institution in IPR2025-00181 and IPR2025-00182 and the official guidance we have received in the Practice Guide, we have no option but to deny Patent Owner’s request that we exercise our discretion to deny institution on all three of the petitions challenging the ’275 patent. Accordingly, we do not exercise our discretion to the deny institution in the instant proceeding. E. Anticipation of Claim 1 by Zhang” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not address the level of skill. See Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’275 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.7 7 If Patent Owner disagrees with this formulation of the level of skill in the art, it must raise that disagreement in its Response. If a different level of skill would affect the outcome in this case, the parties must brief that issue as well. The failure of Patent Owner to describe how a different level of skill in the art is determinative will be a forfeiture of that argument. If there is a dispute regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, then the parties are also encouraged to submit evidence, other than conclusory expert testimony, that supports their position. See 37 C.F.R § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner states that all of the limitations “should be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a” person having ordinary skill in the art. Pet. 19. Although Petitioner argues that none of the limitations are means-plus-function terms, Petitioner provides constructions to the extent that there are means-plus-function terms. Pet. 19–20. Patent Owner does not respond. See Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.8 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor 8 If either party intends to argue a claim construction at trial, including what is the plain and ordinary meaning of a term, they should do so in a clearly designated section of their briefing. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 21, 2019) (“Practice Guide”), 46, 49 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated); O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ 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))). D. Parallel Petitions” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,785,275 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01259 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on all challenged claims 1–15 and all petition grounds because Petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument because it advocates for the importation of functional limitations from the ’794 Patent Specification into the claims––namely the disclosure that the bypass circuit continues to conduct electricity, and keeps the remaining lights lit, even when one or more individual lighting elements in the series are burned out, missing, or defective. See PO Resp. 8–9. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Moreover, the language that Patent Owner wishes to import into the claim from the Specification is functional language that describes the function of the resistor bypass circuit. As explained below in the section addressing the subsequent claim recitation, functional language is evaluated in view of the applied prior art to determine whether it imparts additional structure to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, for the purpose of institution and to the extent the preamble recitation is limiting, we need not provide an express construction for “[a] resistor bypass circuit for a series lighting circuit.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAOther
“3. “Inherent Resistance” Claim 10 uses the term “inherent resistance of the light source to which the light resistor is attached.” See Ex. 1001, 14:46–48. Petitioner asserts that “there is no ‘inherent resistance’ of an LED, but only the resistance of the LED at any particular operating current flowing through, and voltage across, the LED.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1013, 29 ¶¶ 6–9). Petitioner also points out that the term inherent is not used in the ’794 Patent Specification. See id. Patent Owner does not explicitly address “inherent resistance” in terms of a claim construction. See Prelim. Resp. 6–9. In any event, when addressing an alleged lack of motivation to combine the teachings of the references, Patent Owner compares and contrasts incandescent bulbs, which according to Patent Owner, have an inherent resistance, and LEDs, which according to Patent Owner, do not exhibit self-regulating resistance. See Prelim. Resp. 20 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 67); see also id. at 23 (similar argument, citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 73). Indeed, Patent Owner asserts that “the word resistance is not useful when describing LEDs as opposed to incandescent bulbs. . . . LED lights have an exponential current vs. voltage relationship . . . rather than a linear current vs. voltage relationship as found in a simple resistance, such as seen in incandescent light bulbs.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 66). For the purpose of institution, we understand the term “inherent resistance” to mean the resistance at a particular operating current or voltage across the LED light source. To the extent the parties disagree with our understanding, we invite the parties to provide further briefing on the meaning of “inherent resistance” of a LED light source.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and four years of practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or alternatively “would have had a master’s degree and three years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Ex. 1013, 31 ¶ 3; see also Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of institution. See Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’794 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,533,794 - PTAB · Feb 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01258 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–14 on every asserted ground, finding a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“§ 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). An inter partes review may not be instituted unless it is determined that “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons provided below, we determine, based on the record before us, there is a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“We do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument because it advocates for the importation of functional limitations from the ’252 Patent Specification into the claims––namely the disclosure that the bypass circuit continues to conduct electricity, and keeps the remaining lights lit, even when one or more individual lighting elements in the series are burned out, missing, or defective. See PO Resp. 7–8. It is well settled that it is improper to read an extraneous limitation into a claim from the specification. See e.g., Commark Comm’s Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.2d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988). An extraneous limitation is “a limitation read into a claim from the specification wholly apart from any need to interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the claim.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433. Moreover, the language that Patent Owner wishes to import into the claim from the Specification is functional language that describes the function of the resistor bypass circuit. As explained below in the section addressing the subsequent claim recitation, functional language is evaluated in view of the applied prior art to determine whether it imparts additional structure to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. Accordingly, for the purpose of institution and to the extent the preamble recitation is limiting, we need not provide an express construction for “[a] resistor bypass circuit for a series lighting circuit.”” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“For the purpose of institution, we understand the term “inherent resistance” to mean the resistance at a particular operating current or voltage across the LED light source. To the extent the parties disagree with our understanding, we invite the parties to provide further briefing on the meaning of “inherent resistance” of a LED light source.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and four years of practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or alternatively “would have had a master’s degree and three years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Ex. 1013, 32; see also Pet. 18. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of institution. See Prelim. Resp. 2. For the purpose of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is consistent with the level of skill reflected by the ’252 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,096,252 - Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Enovsys LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00825 · APJ Andrew L Nalven · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we decline to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Corresponding structure / algorithm (indefinite if none)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Step 1 of Figure 7 begins by obtaining the geographic information of the area to search for possible remote targets. Id. at 8:57–59. In step 2, the next geographic region where a possible search for a PRU is estimated. Id. at 8:64–66. In step 3, a page is sent out to that geographic region for remote units in the region to reveal their location. Id. at 9:2–4. In steps 4 and 5, if remote units are identified in the paged area, that information is forwarded to the network and the process continues to step 7 where the process is aborted. Id. at 9:4–6. Step 6 is performed if no units are identified in the paged area. Id. at 9:6–9. There, a check is done to establish if there are any remaining cells or grids higher up in the chain to be searched, and if so, the process returns to step 2 to search additional geographic areas. Id. at 9:9–12. The iterative process described in Figure 7 is consistent with Patent Owner’s proposed construction requiring forwarding a notification to only one or more PRUs currently located in a specific geographic boundary. Ex. 2001 ¶ 55; see also Ex. 1001, 8:32–54 (describing a grid search technique that may be implemented by the process of Figure 7).” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“(“POSITA”) would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of GPS and related location tracking techniques, or the equivalent.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–30). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proffered definition as to the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment, which is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the Specification and asserted prior art.” slip op. at 16
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“We are further not persuaded by Petitioner’s argument that forwarding notifications to the PRUs only within a specified geographic region renders element 12[D]’s step of verifying whether the PRUs exists within said region unnecessary. Pet. 35 n.8. Rather, we credit Mr. McAlexander who testifies that forwarding notifications to individually pollable geographic boundaries “does not obviate the need for the PRU to identify that the notification has been received or verify its location within the individual geographic boundary before responding.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 155.” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,199,726 - Dropbox, Inc. v. Entangled Media, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 6, 2024 · IPR2024-00285 · APJ Donald E Daybell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Dropbox did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Conclusion as to Claim 1 Based on the present record, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Havewala teaches at least the following limitations of claim 1: 1. “intercepting the request by a software client on the first device;” and 2. “determining by the software client if the file is physically located on the first device or if the file is a virtual file of a corresponding file physically stored on a second device by reviewing file metadata.” Petitioner does not identify any teachings from Adams that bear on these limitations. Therefore, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success that it would prevail in showing that claim 1 is unpatentable.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“At this juncture, the parties only appear to dispute the educational background in the definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. The only evidence in the present record regarding the educational background consists of Dr. McDaniel’s declarations in this case and in the underlying litigation. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 21; Ex. 2001, 14–15. We agree with Patent Owner that both of these declarations support that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering or a related degree. Prelim. Resp. 2–3. Moreover, Petitioner does not explain why a master’s degree is necessary. Thus, we revise Petitioner’s proposed definition to conform to Dr. McDaniel’s testimony. We additionally remove the qualifier “at least” from Petitioner’s proposed definition, because this qualifier introduces ambiguity. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we apply the following definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art: a POSITA would have been a person holding a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree in computer science or electrical engineering or a related degree, with two years of training or experience with networking and file systems. This definition appears to be consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art references as well. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). We note, however, that our analysis below would not change even if we adopted Petitioner’s definition as stated in the Petition.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Cir. 2017); Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Petitioner asserts that it “does not propose that any terms require construction.” Pet. 11. Similarly, Patent Owner asserts that it “does not propose that the Board expressly construe any claims.” Prelim. Resp. 4. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim term requires express interpretation to resolve any controversy in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“The instant limitation recites “intercepting the request,” which relies for its antecedent basis on the “accepting a request” limitation recited above. Therefore, this claim requires that the same “request” be both accepted and intercepted. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that definite articles such as “the” and “said” create anaphoric phrases that refer to the initial antecedent phrase, and do not alter the meaning of the antecedent “in the slightest”). Petitioner, however, fails to identify any “request” that is both “accepted” and limitation, Petitioner relies on the “open” message sent to the file system as the recited “request” that is accepted. Id. at 20–22. For the “intercepting the request” limitation, however, Petitioner relies on an error message sent back from the file system to the application as the recited “request” that is intercepted. Id. at 33. Thus, Petitioner points to two different features of Havewala for teaching the same required “request” in claim 1. This is fatally inconsistent. Therefore, Petitioner fails to adequately demonstrate that Havewala teaches that the same “request” is first accepted and then intercepted, as required by the claim. Even were we to overlook the inconsistency in Petitioner’s analysis, Petitioner still fails to establish that Havewala teaches the claimed “request to operate on a file.” Petitioner relies for this limitation on an error message generated by the file system as the claimed “request.” Pet. 33. This error message, however, is not a “request to operate on a file,” as claimed. This error message is instead a response generated by the file system to a request from the application or operating system to open a file. Ex. 1005 ¶ 64. The response indicates that the request cannot be fulfilled because the target file has no data. Id. Havewala discusses its messaging paradigm with reference to Figure 6, which is excerpted below: steps performed in reconstituting a ghosted file from the sink. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 27. This excerpt depicts steps 601, 603, and 605. At step 601, the file system 16 receives an open command from an application 30. Id. ¶ 67. In this step, the “file system . . . notes that the ghosted file 14 does not contain the removed data 20.” Id. ¶ 68. Then, after the open command has already been received and processed by Havewala’s file system, the file system returns an error at step 603. Id. at Fig. 6. This “returned error” is what is intercepted by the ghosting filter 26, at step 605. Id. ¶ 68, Fig. 6. Figure 6 of Havewala and the associated text at paragraphs 67 and 68 demonstrate that the error message that is intercepted by Havewala’s ghosting filter is not a request; instead, it is a response to the “open” request. Petitioner’s argument that an error message is the claimed “request” is therefore unsupported by the evidence of record.” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,484,260 - Medit Corporation v. 3shape A/SInstitutedPTAB · Mar 28, 2024 · IPR2023-01315 · APJ James J Mayberry · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 12–17 on all asserted grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“For institution, “[t]he ‘reasonable likelihood’ standard is a somewhat flexible standard that allows the Board room to exercise judgment.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 53 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.” slip op. at 15
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, we interpret a claim “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 this standard, we construe the claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id.” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element) › Inherent disclosureInherency foundInstituted
“We understand Petitioner to rely on an inherent disclosure of the certainty score in contending that Korten anticipates claim 1. See, e.g., ABS Glob., Inc. v. Cytonome/St, LLC, 84 F.4th 1034, 1042–43 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“A claim is anticipated if ‘each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.’” (emphasis added). And inherency is a high standard. See, e.g., Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.”). We determine, on the limited record before us, that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing for institution that a certainty score would naturally flow from Korten’s validity and error determinations. Accordingly, upon review of the information in the Petition and corresponding evidence, including Patent Owner’s counter arguments, we determine Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated, at this stage of the proceeding, that Korten discloses the subject matter of limitation 1[c].” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot reached
“teachings of Korten with either Lehmann I or Lehmann II. Prelim. Resp. 22–26, 29 (referencing arguments for Ground 2), 35–36 (referencing arguments for Ground 2 directed to motivation to combine references). Patent Owner argues that, contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the technology of Korten does not overlap with Lehmann II. Id. at 23. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner and Dr. Foroosh fail to address how a person having ordinary skill in the art could have successfully combined the two-dimensional imaging of Lehmann II with the three-dimensional imaging of Korten. See id.; see, e.g., Pet. 31 (“Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models.”). Patent Owner argues that Petitioner should have been aware of this issue given the Board’s prior decision denying institution in IPR2023-00400. Prelim. Resp. 23. Patent Owner then itemizes a list of technical challenges with respect to combining a two-dimensional system with a three-dimensional system. Id. at 24. These challenges include that Petitioner does not explain “how one might associate a Z-coordinate of Korten with the color data obtained by the Lehmann II camera,” how a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have Korten’s processor align the [two-dimensional] color image areas obtained by the Lehmann II camera with the [three-dimensional] entity previously created by Korten, and then provide color values to the entity at aligned X-Y-Z points,” and “how to implement Lehmann II’s [two-dimensional] image into Korten’s [three-dimensional] model.” Id.; see also id. at 24–26 (discussing difficulties in using spectrophotometers to collect color data and associating two-dimensional color data with three-dimensional representations). Petitioner, concentrating on Lehmann II’s best fit technology, contends that “[a]lthough Lehmann II is directed towards the analysis of [two-dimensional] images, whereas Korten is directed towards rendering and displaying [three-dimensional] models, this difference is immaterial as it relates to determining the certainty score of the selected tooth shade value.” Pet. 31 (referencing Ex. 1015 ¶ 141); cf. Ex. 1015 ¶ 141 (providing the same testimony as is in the Petition). We have reviewed Patent Owner’s argument and determine, on the limited record before us, that Patent Owner identifies a weakness in Petitioner’s position. Petitioner’s contentions concerning motivation to combine Korten and Lehmann II seem to focus on a motivation for using Lehmann’s teachings of the subject matter of limitation 1[c], and does not address Petitioner’s reliance on Lehmann II for the subject matter of limitation 1[b], which recites the step of “determining a tooth shade value for at least one point on the tooth based on the texture data of the corresponding point of the digital 3D representation and on known texture values of one or more reference tooth shade values.” See Pet. 30 (mapping the requirements of limitation 1[b] to disclosures in Lehmann II); Ex. 1001, 21:33–37 (providing limitation 1[b]). Limitation 1[b] seems to require implementing teachings concerning two-dimensional color data from Lehmann II with three-dimensional color data collected at the step of limitation 1[a] by Korten’s system. As such, Petitioner’s reasoning may not be adequately supported by a rational underpinning. Cf. KSR Int’l Co., 550 U.S. at 418 (stating that, to facilitate the analysis of an obviousness position, the proponent should provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”). The parties may develop the record concerning this dispute at trial.” slip op. at 30
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,695,151
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.