- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2024-01405 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: claims 1–20 over Torii, claims 1–3, 9, 11–13, and 19 over Ide, and claims 1–7, 10–17, and 20 over Gambino with Conn, with Ding for claims 10 and 20.
RulingsFinal written decision- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“of the substrate is based on Dr. Thompson’s testimony. In his first declaration, Dr. Thompson relies on Conn’s paragraphs 31 and 35 to support the annotated version of Figure 2 in the Petition. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 83–84. As discussed above, paragraphs 31 and 35 do not disclose that the anchor vias 14 are located in the corner of the substrate. The second annotated Figure 2 shown in Petitioner’s Reply does not appear in either of Dr. Thompson’s declarations (See Ex. 1003, Ex. 1034). It appears to be mere attorney argument not evidence. Dr. Thompson testified in his deposition that the second annotated version is based on his interpretation of Conn. Ex. 2009, 45:2–46:9. Because Dr. Thompson’s testimony is not adequately supported by the disclosure of Conn, we find that his testimony on the point of whether Conn discloses anchor vias located in the corner of the substrate is entitled to little, if any, weight. 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.”). Therefore, because Petitioner has the burden of proof, we find that Petitioner has not shown that Conn discloses this limitation.” slip op. at 27
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
“J. Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2007 and 2008. MTE, 1. Petitioner argues that the Exhibits are in violation of FRE 401, 402, 403, and 901. Id. We do not rely on either Exhibit 2007 or 2008 in this Decision. Consequently, we deny Petitioner’s MTE as moot.” slip op. at 72
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of skill in the art are immaterial for the purposes of this Decision. We apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’826 patent and the prior art. Further, our determination in this case would not be affected if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 uses the term “comprising” which is open-ended and normally does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. See Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This is in contrast to the phrase “consisting of.” See Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (there is an “exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with ‘consisting of’ is closed to unrecited elements.”). The use of comprising in claim 1, thus, weighs against a construction limiting claim 1 to direct contact between the backside metal layer and the bottom surface of the semiconductor substrate. Additionally, we note that claim 1 does not recite that the backside metal layer is “directly on” or “formed on” the bottom surface or similar language that would suggest “direct contact” may be required. For these reasons, we determine that the language of claim 1 does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 9,245,826 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,245,826 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00636 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 are unpatentable as obvious over Kim; the Board did not reach the four other instituted grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is reasonable and consistent with the ’786 patent and the asserted prior art. Thus, for these reasons, we adopt Petitioner’s level of skill in the art for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Based on the full record, we maintain that it is unnecessary to explicitly construe “athletic positioning” because its meaning is already captured in the claim through the recitation of the relationship between the various slopes of the sole that provide “athletic positioning” of the foot. See Ex. 1001, 44:2–14. The recitations of a “first slope,” “second slope,” “third slope,” and “reference slope” translate into the relative heights proposed in adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it incorporates the specification’s consistent descriptions of “athletic positioning” in terms of relative heights and slopes. For example, one embodiment of an “athletic positioning shape” is where “the heel platform may be 10 to 30 mm higher” than “the toe cup and/or the ball of foot cup.” [Ex. 1001], 13:38–45. Another embodiment discloses “an athletic positioning sole that includes an overall geometric shape” including “the heel of the sole [at] a particular height (e.g., h1, which may be 1’s to 10’s of mm) that slopes at an angle (e.g., Ø1) to the toe on the inside edge of the sole” which “may have a height of zero to a few millimeters.” Id., 17:54–62. PO Resp. 29. However, we find Patent Owner’s contention regarding particular heights and specific angles attempts to import limitations from the Specification into claims. Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim.”). Based on the full record, we determine that express claim construction of “athletic positioning” is not necessary to resolve the present dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“8. Conclusion for Ground 1 We have considered all of the arguments and evidence adduced at trial. For the reasons explained, we find Petitioner has persuasively demonstrated that Kim teaches or suggests all limitations of claims 1–8. We also find that the value of Patent Owner’s objective evidence of non-obviousness is weak in comparison to the evidence regarding the prior art under the first three Graham factors. Accordingly, we find Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–8 of the ’786 patent would have been obvious over Kim.” slip op. at 39
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the full record, we determine that Patent Owner fails to show nexus between the claimed invention and the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness. PO Resp. 70–78; PO Sur-reply 25–28. Other than asserting that “the requisite nexus exists here” (PO Resp. 71), and citing to the Declaration testimony of Mr. Markison (id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 322)), the Patent Owner response does not provide an analysis of Patent Owner’s product with respect to the claims of the ’768 patent, and thus does not demonstrate nexus. To the extent Patent Owner references Mr. Markison’s testimony, Mr. Markison’s testimony consists solely of the statement that Patent Owner “sells and markets golf and baseball shoes that embody the claims of the ’786 patent” with reference to an exhibit from district court litigation. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 322 (citing Ex. 2014). We find Patent Owner’s reliance on Mr. Markison’s testimony to be insufficient to establish a rebuttable presumption of nexus. Thus, Patent Owner is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption of nexus, because Patent Owner has not shown that the asserted evidence is tied to a specific product that is the disclosed and claimed invention. Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Patent Owner also does not provide any evidence that the asserted” slip op. at 33
Patent outcomesUS 10,674,786 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,674,786 - PTAB · Mar 20, 2025 · IPR2024-01407 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claim 26 on the Shell and Cole §103 ground, finding a reasonable likelihood that the combination renders the claim obvious.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 10
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Considering these disclosures together with the cited paragraphs of Petitioner’s declaration, Petitioner sufficiently shows on the present record that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, in Shell, when a user attempts a voice call, the user can cause a current data connection to disconnect, because (1) a voice-related connection request will be made, (2) the request for voice connection will be prioritized over data requests, and (3) the request will also be prioritized if it is coming from an active application rather than an application running in the background. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. On the preliminary record, the relied-upon portions of Shell adequately show a determination of whether an application is an active application for prioritization purposes and disconnecting a current data connection due to a user attempting to make a voice call. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call would be a user interaction resulting in a request for a voice connection that would be prioritized over the data request of another application using the current data connection. See Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8, 13, 14, 57. The attempt to make a voice call also involves a user interacting with an application to make it an active background. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 140. Petitioner, thus, sufficiently shows for institution that Shell’s processor is “configured to determine that the different application is an active application based on a user interaction with the different application,” as required by claim 26. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 140.” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“One of ordinary skill in the art, Petitioner argues, would have, thus, been motivated to look to references, such as Cole, that provided mobile devices with network access while addressing cost, power, and network selection. Pet. 13–14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006, code (57), ¶¶ 14–15, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that Cole describes Internet access control techniques based on conditions, such as power state change and load on current communication links, and that applying Cole to Shell would have “promoted more efficient communications and network access connectivity.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 83, 98). Using Cole’s techniques, the proposed combination, Petitioner explains, would have evaluated network and power conditions, determined whether to apply an Internet access control, evaluated further conditions, such as whether the application is running in the foreground or background, and then determined the priority of packets traveling over the selected network. Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68; Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 11, 78, 83, 88, 98). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated Cole’s communication manager 260 into Shell’s connection manager modules 210 and would have incorporated Cole’s connections.” Id. at 14–15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1005 ¶ 32, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶ 31). Petitioner further argues that the proposed combination would have included the processors, non-transitory memory, and display, as taught by both references, to perform the recited operations. Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71–72; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 38–44, Fig. 1; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 40, Fig. 2). Petitioner additionally argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it “would have required only routine programming knowledge well within [ordinary] skill,” “would have amounted to nothing more than the use of a known technique to improve similar devices . . . in a similar way,” and would have been “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 36, 40; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 34, 35, Fig. 2).” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Petitioner’s declarant opines that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of industry experience in services and application implementation in communication networks.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 15. The declarant also opines that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and vice versa.” Id. “For purposes of [its] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.” Prelim. Resp. 5 (citing Pet. 13 n.2; Ex. 1003 ¶ 15); see also Ex. 2010 ¶ 27 (stating “[f]or purposes of . . . my analysis, I do not disagree with this proposed level of skill in the art”). Based on the” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 9,179,359 - TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. / TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v. University Of Rochester (Intellectual Ventures I, LLC)Institution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01245 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not show compelling merits.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv factors”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review (also “IPR”) unless the information presented in the petition “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.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“Thus, although Petitioner contends that Njølstad implements a dynamically changeable frequency for each domain wherein a local “rate requirement can dynamically be configured” such that “the locally generated clock rate is just high enough to perform the actual processing task” at that rate (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009 § IV.D)), such teaching merely supports Petitioner’s contention that the frequency is dynamically changeable at the local level (id.). However, as Patent Owner points out, such showing is not a compelling disclosure of the frequency generation being independent of the frequencies of the other domains, as required by the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 28–34. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not presented compelling merits that Njølstad teaches “the frequency being dynamically changeable independently of the frequencies of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“However, Patent Owner argues that Iyer published after the invention to the ’443 patent was actually reduced to practice. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. In particular, Patent Owner provides evidentiary testimonies of Dr. Kaeli (Ex. 2001) and Mr. Albonesi (Ex. 2003) to support its contends the ’443 patent incorporates by reference a paper authored by the inventors and published in February 2002 (Ex. 2005), which demonstrates conception by providing a full written description of the claimed invention. Prelim. Resp. 6–16. According to Patent Owner, a simulation described in the paper embodied the invention in a tangible form, wherein the simulation described in the paper showed that the invention worked for its intended purpose. Id. at 16–19 (citing Exs. 2001, 2003, 2005). Similarly, Patent Owner contends that the application from which Soerensen issued was filed on August 29, 2002, which is after the invention date of the ’443 patent. Prelim. Resp. 35. According to Patent Owner, while Soerensen claims priority to the Soerensen Provisional Application (Ex. 1022), the passages from Soerensen relied on in the Petition are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the Soerensen Provisional Application because the subject matter was not disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. We recognize potential merits to Patent Owner’s position. That is, we do not find compelling Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims would have been obvious Iyer or Soerensen.” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,089,443 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Dec 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00945 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“review. 35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). We may not institute an inter partes review “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The “reasonable likelihood” standard is “a higher standard than mere notice pleading” but “lower than the ‘preponderance’ standard to prevail in a final written decision.” Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at 13 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) (precedential). 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).” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Prelim. Resp. 22; Ex. 2001 ¶ 67. Patent Owner argues Petitioner relies on Freund to “cure this deficiency,” but the “Petition fails to explain why [the skilled artisan] seeking to implement a Rao-based system would look to Freund’s teachings of foreground/background classifications designed to limit an employee’s ‘counterproductive Web browsing.’” Prelim. Resp. 22. According to Patent Owner and its expert, Mr. de la Iglesia, the skilled artisan “would not have been motivated to do so, because directly contrary to Rao which suggests prioritizing foreground activity over background activity, the relevant teachings of Freund restrict foreground activity relative to background activity.” Id. (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 67–79); see Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 69 (“Rao favors foreground activity, and Freund favors background activity”), 70 (“In contrast [to Rao], Freund teaches the opposite—that foreground activity should be disfavored relative to background activity.”); Prelim. Resp. 23–25. Patent Owner argues the “Petition does not explain why [the skilled artisan] would have been motivated to combine these two references’ treatment of foreground/background classifications, given their opposing treatment of foreground and background activity.” Id. at 25; see id. at 25–28 (Patent Owner explaining why “none of the Petition’s motivations would have justified combining Rao’s and Freund’s contradictory teachings regarding treatment of foreground activity.” (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 74–79)). In short, according to Patent Owner’s expert’s persuasive testimony, “if [the skilled artisan] were looking for ways to supplement Rao’s treatment of foreground activity, they would not have looked to teachings that explicitly disfavor foreground activities, contrary to Rao’s teachings.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 79 (cited at Prelim. Resp. 28).” slip op. at 31
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Patent Owner does not present an alternative definition at this stage of the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (“For purposes of this Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not challenge that definition.”). 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) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues, at least at this stage of the proceeding, that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’613 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s proposed and unopposed definition of the skilled artisan (Ex. 1003 ¶ 61), we apply the level of skill set forth above.” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim terms for construction. Pet. 3 (“No terms require construction to resolve this Petition.”); Prelim. Resp. 6 (“Patent Owner agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.”). We do not find that the express construction of any term is necessary for this decision. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,215,613 - PTAB · Oct 31, 2024 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 5–7 and 16–19, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 5–7 and 16–19 are unpatentable over Samartgis and at least claims 5 and 19 over Leoncavallo.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“U.S.C. § 314(a) due to the advanced state of the parallel district court action, and, in doing so, relies heavily on the district court’s scheduled trial date of September 22, 2025. See Prelim. Resp. 51, 54. While the district court’s scheduled trial date may be earlier than the Board’s projected deadline for a final written decision here, CamelBak’s reliance on that date is misplaced. The Office takes the position that a district court’s scheduled trial dates are “unreliable and often change” and that a more reliable indicator is the district court’s “median time-to-trial for civil actions,” which, in this case, would place the district court’s trial date after the projected deadline of any final written decision here. See Director Memorandum, Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA-Post Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (June 21, 2022) (“Director’s Interim Procedure”), at 8–9. Thus, CamelBak’s reliance 5 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). on the district court’s scheduled trial date has no bearing on whether we should discretionarily deny institution. Of greater relevance is Trove’s express stipulation not to pursue the same grounds in the district court action as advanced in the petition or any ground that relies on the prior art references cited in the petition. See Pet. 100. Although not exactly a Sotera stipulation, the Office nonetheless recognizes that such stipulations further mitigate concerns of potentially conflicting decisions and duplicative efforts between us and the district court. See Director’s Interim Procedure, at 7–8. Thus, given Trove’s stipulation and the fact that the district court’s median time-to-trial is after the projected deadline of our final written decision here, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 314(a).” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDenied
“We disagree that Samartgis is the substantially the same as the corresponding design patent cited during prosecution, mainly because the design patent fails to show the closure retention mechanism that is clearly shown and described in Samartgis and goes to the very heart of Trove’s showing of anticipation and obviousness. Compare Ex. 1004, Figs. 3–5 (showing lug members 15, 16 and ramp sections 23, 25, 27), with Ex. 2001, Figs. 1–8 (omitting any depiction of lug members or ramp sections). Thus, Samartgis clearly was not considered. And, although Leoncavallo and Miller may arguably have been considered during prosecution, “[w]hen instituting . . . 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.” 42 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). As such, we will not discretionarily deny institution under § 325(d). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Trove proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products . . . [and that] [m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). CamelBak appears to agree. See Prelim. Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner assumes Petitioner has correctly stated the level of ordinary skill in the art and does not set forth its own definition.”). At this stage, we see no reason to depart from Trove’s proposed definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Not reached
“At this stage, we do not see the need to resolve the § 112(f) issue in light of Trove’s express and unrebutted showing that the prior art teaches sufficiently analogous structure to that identified in the ’252 patent for performing the disputed functional limitations of the claimed “closure retention mechanism.” See Pet. 35 (asserting that “[Samartgis’s] lug members 15 and 16 also are at least equivalent to the structure identified in the specification (i.e., the two or more spaced-apart tabs on the handle)” because “[l]ike the opposed tabs of the ’252 patent, the lug members 15 and 16 are projections that extend from the inner surface of the handle to engage the closure.”). Indeed, at this stage, CamelBak chooses not to address Trove’s showing in this regard, instead arguing that “the construction of ‘closure retention mechanism’ is irrelevant because [Trove] fails to show lug members 15 and 16 are configured to meet other limitations of claims 5 and 19.” Prelim. Resp. 20 n.7. That said, to the extent either party believes it is necessary for final resolution of patentability, they should explore the § 112(f) issue further during the trial phase.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,905,252 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00809 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–18 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that the Limont, Wright, and Xu combination renders claim 1 unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“c) Petitioner Shows a Reasonable Likelihood of Prevailing Based on the preliminary record, Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that Limont, Wright, and Xu teach, suggest, or would have been understood to disclose the limitations of claim 1 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined those references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 28
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied
“Here, we do not find that Fintiv factors 1–5 weigh in favor of discretionary denial. Additionally, after weighing Fintiv factors 1–6, we determine that, on balance, these factors do not favor exercising our discretion to deny institution. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, there is no need to determine whether the Petition establishes compelling merits. G. Conclusion on Fintiv Factors Based on a holistic analysis of the Fintiv factors taking into consideration “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review” (Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6), we decline to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to implement a secure environment as taught by Xu on Limont’s mobile device incorporating Wright’s encryption functionality” so as “to provide for the protection of data in mobile devices using techniques such as hardware protections and encryptions” and to address “‘malicious users’ accessing confidential information.” Pet. 40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 263–267, 379– 286, 431–440; Ex. 1004 ¶ 13; Ex. 1016 ¶ 30). Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been “motivated to modify Wright’s encryption functionality using a secure environment as taught by Xu” because “the teachings of Xu beneficially increase Limont’s and Wright’s protections.” Id. at 41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 437; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 78, 267; Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 25–26). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 165–222, 263–298, 427–440), 23 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 296–297; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 9, 40, Fig. 1), 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 438–440).” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Based on Patent Owner’s cited support from the Specification and declarant testimony that has not yet been challenged, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “network data service” to mean “a service that provides network data.” Prelim. Resp. 5; Ex. 1001, 1:48–49 (“many access networks such as wireless networks, cable networks and DSL (Digital Subscriber Line)”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 30. The parties should consider further addressing Patent Owner’s proposed interpretation during trial.” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,198,042 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00752 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least claim 1 over Coffman and declining § 325(d) denial.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“(iii) Conclusion as to Claim 1 We conclude Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable as having been obvious over Coffman.” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“synchronizing” of context information and Coffman’s “updating” of context information. See Prelim. Resp. 1–2, 18, 20–23. However, this overlooks that Coffman describes its “updating” of context information as “the exchange of information to coordinate the conversation involving multiple devices,” such as Coffman’s master device and slave devices. Ex. 1003, 22:32–23:15 (emphasis added), 25:10–14, 26:28–27:20. Based on the present record, we are persuaded by Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that this results in synchronization of context information between the devices, such that (for example) the context stack of Coffman’s master device is updated based on the context stack of Coffman’s slave device(s). See Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 70–71. This is consistent, for example, with the ’652 patent’s description of “[t]he synchronization process” as “attempt[ing] to determine which version of a data element or an agent are the newest or most up-to-date and propagates that element,” including replacing “a portion of the database.” Ex. 1001, 17:25–32. slip op. at 25
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner appears to be relying on an implicit claim construction that the term “synchronize” requires perfect synchronization, not allowing any deviation between the respective context stacks of the synchronized devices. This implicit claim construction is contradicted by the ’652 patent specification, which contemplates that “[t]he synchronization may be performed automatically when any two or more of the computers are connected to these networks,” or “[a]lternatively . . . the synchronization” slip op. at 26
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“We conclude, per Advanced Bionics, that the Examiner erred in “overlooking specific teachings” of Coffman / Coffman ’574 when allowing the ’652 patent to issue. Advanced Bionics, at 8–9 & n.9; see also id. at 10 (“[I]f the record of the Office’s previous consideration of the art is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive[.]”). Here, the Examiner cited Coffman ’574 as a considered reference, but did not cite Coffman ’574 as the basis for any claim rejections. See supra Section IV.B.1. Nor did the Examiner express any reasons for allowance over Coffman ’574. See id. Patent Owner’s argument that the Examiner allowed the ’652 patent claims over Coffman ’574 for the same reasons that the Examiner allowed the claims over the unrelated Mumick reference is not supported by the prosecution history evidence. In particular, the Examiner cited Mumick’s synchronization of navigation histories as being different from the claimed synchronization of context stacks/sets. See Ex. 1012, 170–171, 447. Coffman / Coffman ’574, by contrast, specifically discloses context stacks/sets. See supra Section III.E.2(ii) (comparing Coffman with claim 1 of the ’652 patent). Patent Owner does not cite to anything in the prosecution history to establish the Examiner considered the specific teachings of Coffman / Coffman ’574 cited in the Petition as disclosing the synchronization of context stacks/sets recited in claims 1, 14, and 20 of the ’652 patent. Indeed, accepting Patent Owner’s reasoning would prove too much, as it would mean the Examiner concluded all of the twelve initially-cited references (see Ex. 1012, 175) as well as all of the approximately 650 later-cited references (see id. at 450–477) were distinguished from the allowed claims by failing to disclose or suggest synchronizing context stacks/sets, because the same reasons for allowance over Mumick were provided in both instances (see id. at 170–171, 447). Thus, we conclude Petitioner’s case for obviousness over Coffman is not a mere “disagreement with a specific finding of record by the Office” during prosecution of the ’652 patent. Advanced Bionics, at 10–11.” slip op. at 38
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,849,652 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 11, 2024 · IPR2024-00751 · APJ George R Hoskins · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Google did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim, failing to show Coffman identifies a domain agent associated with a matching context-stack entry.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). B. Legal Standards — Obviousness A patent 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 said 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 ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, if made available in the record, which has not happened here. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
- BurdenDenied
“institution of review, Petitioner’s contention that Coffman’s CVM 14 / 202 / 401 includes a processor that identifies a domain agent (i.e., one of Coffman’s conversationally aware applications 11) associated with an entry in a context stack (i.e., context stack 217 / 405) that matches information in a merged transcription of user inputs. Details are provided below, but in overview, we determine Coffman’s disclosure is too high-level and non-specific, and Mr. Schmandt’s supporting testimony is too conclusory, to justify institution here. See, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it “is conclusory and unsupported, [and] adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support”); 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 18
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsNot reached
“IV. POTENTIAL DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) Patent Owner urges us to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) to deny institution of review, on the basis that the Examiner considered and commented on Coffman and Kennewick during prosecution of the ’607 patent, and Petitioner’s reliance on Ross (in Ground One) and Lee (in Ground Two) does not cure a deficiency of Coffman relating to merged transcriptions that was recognized by the Examiner. See Prelim. Resp. 3–4, 14, 44, 47–50. Petitioner provides opposing arguments. See Pet. 10–12. In light of our determination above to deny institution on the merits per 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we do not reach the § 325(d) issues raised by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 25
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“institution of review, Petitioner’s contention that Coffman’s CVM 14 / 202 / 401 includes a processor that identifies a domain agent (i.e., one of Coffman’s conversationally aware applications 11) associated with an entry in a context stack (i.e., context stack 217 / 405) that matches information in a merged transcription of user inputs. Details are provided below, but in overview, we determine Coffman’s disclosure is too high-level and non-specific, and Mr. Schmandt’s supporting testimony is too conclusory, to justify institution here. See, e.g., Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9, at 15–17 (PTAB Aug. 24, 2022) (precedential) (holding an expert’s declaration testimony is entitled to little weight when it “is conclusory and unsupported, [and] adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support”); 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 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,447,607 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Sep 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00638 · APJ William V Saindon · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–11 and all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 was obvious over Kim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“based on the related district court matters identified above. Prelim. Resp. 23–35; see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 11–12 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (holding that PTAB has discretion to deny institution in certain circumstances where there are parallel district court proceedings). Our analysis under Fintiv is guided by the USPTO Director’s Memorandum issued on June 21, 2022, titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” (“Director’s Memo”). Pursuant to the Director’s Memo, we “will not discretionarily deny institution . . . where a petitioner presents a [Sotera] stipulation.” Director’s Memo at 3 (citing Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A)). Because Petitioner has offered a stipulation like in Sotera, i.e., to “not pursue in the associated litigation . . . the grounds raised in the Petition for IPR or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB in this proceeding” (Paper 7), we do not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“surface. Patent Owner passes over the disclosure in Kim’s Figure 5b, which appear to depict the claimed big toe-to-little toe slope when the golfer is attempting a swing. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Just as ‘an accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes,’ Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–623 (Fed. Cir. 1995), a prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.”). In addition, Figures 1, 2, and 3a of Kim appear to show an incline from the toe to heel (as is typical in shoes). See also Ex. 1005 ¶ 27 (“Except for the outsole 10 including the inclined lower surface 12, the golf shoe 100 of the present invention is substantially the same as conventional golf shoes.”). Thus, on this record, we are persuaded that Kim sufficiently discloses the slopes required by claim 1. Reviewing the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Kim.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“2. Analysis Patent Owner argues that Kim does not disclose the slopes required in independent claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 35–40. Patent Owner focuses its analysis on Figure 5a, however, which depicts the golfer standing on a hard surface. Patent Owner passes over the disclosure in Kim’s Figure 5b, which appear to depict the claimed big toe-to-little toe slope when the golfer is attempting a swing. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Mustek Systems, Inc., 340 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Just as ‘an accused product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless infringes,’ Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 622–623 (Fed. Cir. 1995), a prior art product that sometimes, but not always, embodies a claimed method nonetheless teaches that aspect of the invention.”). In addition, Figures 1, 2, and 3a of Kim appear to show an incline from the toe to heel (as is typical in shoes). See also Ex. 1005 ¶ 27 (“Except for the outsole 10 including the inclined lower surface 12, the golf shoe 100 of the present invention is substantially the same as conventional golf shoes.”). Thus, on this record, we are persuaded that Kim sufficiently discloses the slopes required by claim 1. Reviewing the Petition and Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of success in showing that claim 1 would have been obvious in view of Kim.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“A person of ordinary skill in the art would have (1) at least a B.S. or equivalent degree related to industrial or product design and at least two years’ experience designing or developing athletic shoes; or (2) at least five years designing or developing athletic shoes. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). Patent Owner does not contest. Prelim. Resp. 17. Reviewing the ’760 patent and the cited prior art, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is reasonable and adopt it for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,064,760
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.