- Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01461 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a sufficient motivation to combine Peev and Spitballs, including with Moorhouse.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties do not address the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had: a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, industrial design, or equivalent, with at least one year of relevant experience designing projectile launching systems but would also be a member of a team, which would include a person with a chemical engineering), or has at least one year experience working with materials for use in consumer products and that “equivalent work experience may substitute for educational experience, and vice versa.” Pet. 21–22 (quoting Ex. 1015, 7–8); see also Ex. 1016 ¶ 55 (stating that “Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s definitions of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] are similar, and my opinions in this Declaration would not change if I used Patent Owner’s definition of the [person of ordinary skill in the art] rather than Petitioner’s definition”). We find that the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the ’255 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any interpretation for any claim term. Pet. 23; see PO Resp. Petitioner notes that the ALJ in the ITC proceeding construed two terms used in the ’282 and ’683 patents, specifically “super absorbent polymer” and “a firing mechanism that directly applies a force to the ammunition.” Pet. 23 (citing Ex. 1015, 12, 14). Based on the full record, we determine that no term requires express construction to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to 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 8
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“we give little weight to the opinion of Dr. Courtney on whether Spitballs would have been considered liquid filled by one of ordinary skill in the art. Pet. Reply 15–16; PO Sur-reply 18; Ex. 1037 ¶ 55; Ex. 2121, 61:12–13; see also PO Sur-reply 14–15 (arguing that Dr. Courtney does not meet the adopted level of ordinary skill in the art). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list of “rubber, cork, foam, and soft plastics, such as SAPs” “does not exclude all of the other types of materials Petitioner failed to address—e.g., the gelatin materials used to make paintballs.” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 2117, 1). The “openended” list “has no meaningful evidentiary support” because the cited paragraphs from its declaration “make no reference at all to potential airsoft ammunition.” Pet. 38; PO Resp. 24; Ex. 1016 ¶ 77; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 36–39, 46– 48. Petitioner’s declarant Dr. Reitman also “acknowledged that airsoft considerations are beyond the scope of her testimony.” Ex. 2030, 117:17– 118:20. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s list would include “countless distinct polymers.” PO Resp. 25; Ex. 2120, 27–28.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“In other words, Petitioner does not squarely address the testimonial evidence that the softness of Spitballs would not have been equated with safety, because of its higher weight and kinetic energy. Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 44–55. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not assert fragmentation and deformation would have overcome the greater kinetic energy of the heavier Spitballs, and that Petitioner’s declarant admitted such calculation was not done. PO Sur-reply 7 (citing Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7); Ex. 2121, 48:11–49:7 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that calculations of how much kinetic energy is absorbed when Spitballs bounce or explode were not done). Petitioner’s declarant also identified that back splatter can create an additional safety concern. Ex. 2121, 101:14–104:4. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner failed to discuss the deformation and fragmentation of Spitballs in its Petition and declarations. PO Sur-reply 6 (citing Pet. Reply 10–11; Ex. 1037 ¶ 43). We also agree that Petitioner did not explain how one of ordinary skill in the art could have reliably assessed the safety of Spitballs and airsoft rounds. Id.; see also Ex. 2121, 47:1–48:10 (Petitioner’s declarant testifying that experimentation would be the best way to quantify how much kinetic energy is absorbed through deformation and fragmentation of a given projectile). focused on the mass and diameter calculations provided by Petitioner’s declarant, and Petitioner has the burden to analyze a projectile other than the one disclosed in Spitballs, not Patent Owner. PO Sur-reply 10–11 (citing Pet. Reply 13; Ex. 1017 ¶ 67; Ex. 2015 ¶ 59). Petitioner failed to do such an analysis of a 6mm Spitball or SAP projectile. Regarding Petitioner’s reliance on deposition testimony from the ITC proceedings, as argued by Patent Owner, its declarant agreed that making ammunition softer would make injury less likely, if all other parameters were equal, not larger and heavier like a substitution with Spitballs. PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Pet. 37; Ex. 1004, 531:25–532:9; Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 60–61); Ex. 1017 ¶ 67 (Petitioner’s declarant opining that Spitballs can “grow up to 200 times their original size” to reach a mass of 1.844g); Ex. 1037 ¶ 39 (Petitioner’s declarant agreeing that “when all other variables are held constant, heavier is less safe, meaning injury potential is increased”); Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 54–59 (Patent Owner’s declarant opining that heavier and softer ammunition can pose more injury risk); Ex. 2016, 11 (indicating that airsoft ammunition typically comes in weights from 0.12g to 0.25g). We, thus, agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to prove that” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,596,255 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,596,255 - Gettattle, Inc. v. Afterwords, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Oct 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00677 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–7, 10, 13, 16, 18, and 19 on all four anticipation grounds because the Petition showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a), we have authority to determine whether to institute trial in an inter partes review. We may institute an inter partes review if the information presented in the petition filed under 35 U.S.C. § 311, and any preliminary response filed under § 313, shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the petition. 35 U.S.C. § 314. After reviewing the parties’ submissions in view of the existing record, we conclude that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in showing that at least one challenged claim of the ’811 patent is unpatentable under the presented grounds. See Pet. Therefore, we grant institution of inter partes review. Our reasoning is discussed below. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ORDINARY LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner contends: As of the effective priority date of the ‘811 patent, a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field at the time would be familiar with the pre-existing point of sale and network-based technologies as above, for example in Section I.D. above as well as the “BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION” portion of the ‘811 patent specification. Ex. 1001, col. 1, l. 21 – col. 5, l. 10. This person would include someone who has, through education or practical experience, at least 2-3 years of experience in software engineering, such as the development of data sets, database management, and networking integration for dynamic content generation and network-based distribution. Pet. 10. Patent Owner states, “[f]or the purposes of this Preliminary Response only, Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Petition, p. 10.” Prelim. Resp. 14. We accept and use Petitioner’s proposed, and unopposed, definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan. It appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’811 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may] reflect[] an appropriate level” of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). C.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“The claim language does little to identify any meaning of “point-of- sale interface.” Looking to the ’811 patent’s written description, it never uses the term “point-of-sale interface,” but it states “moder[n] Point-of-Sale (POS) systems . . . capture rich details around their customers’ purchasing activity.” Ex. 1001, 1:52–54. The Specification further states that “[t]he transaction data may be stored locally to a point-of-sale (“POS”) device or to a remote location, such as a cloud service provider.” Id. at 2:23–25. Regarding the associated term “interface,” the written description states, “[i]n general, as used herein, an interface is a component of computer executable instructions stored in a tangible, non-transitory medium and executed by processor 12 to present a display of information related to the interface allowing someone to view and/or interact with the presented information.” Id. at 4:32–37. We are pointed to and find nothing in the ’811 patent’s prosecution history that sheds any further light on the meaning of this language. See Pet. 12–14; Prelim. Resp. 12–13; Ex. 1003. Based on the intrinsic record, we find that the ’811 patent describes a point-of-sale as being local to a transaction, e.g., a sale/purchase of a product” slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Instituted
“At this point in the proceeding, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the recited survey module must be autonomous, self-contained, or a web-container package. As discussed above, we preliminarily interpret this term to mean software code for displaying a survey question. We find no support in the current record to add to this definition any additional requirements related to autonomy, self-containment, or a web-based context for the survey module. The Petition (at 19) points to Douglas as teaching the claimed survey module, i.e., in Douglas, software sent to the customer for taking a product survey on the display of the customer’s computer device. Douglas teaches, in response to a customer providing a survey trigger (e.g., purchase data signals), a survey generator creates a transaction-specific survey (e.g., “Was the item you found too expensive?”) and transmits it to the customer’s device (e.g., a mobile phone with a touchscreen); the survey is interactive; and the customer touches or clicks their device’s screen to respond to the survey questions. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 34–35. Moreover, Douglas also discloses that its survey “interact[s] with the customer using one or more software applications on customer device 106,” which may be, e.g., a computer or mobile phone, further, “[t]he one or more software applications may be provided by survey system 101, or merchant 107, or a third party,” and finally, “[t]he one or more software applications may be web-based applications and/or native mobile applications installed on the customer device 106.” Id. ¶¶ 18–20; see also Prelim. Resp. 35 (conceding as much). Thus, Douglas appears to disclose a survey system where a survey server responds to a triggering survey token created by a merchant and sent by a customer, that connects the customer with a particular purchase, by creating a purchase-specific survey question and sending it to a customer’s electronic device, where the survey question is displayed on a web-browser by software, and the customer’s survey answers may then spur the system to generate and follow up with additional questions. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 18–20, 27–29, 33–39. This appears to include the claimed survey module at issue. As for Patent Owner’s argument that the recited survey module must” slip op. at 31
Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 10,430,811 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00943 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–23, 26, 41–60, 63, 64, 91–152, and 155–171 are unpatentable; Rao anticipates some claims, and the stated Rao combinations render the remaining claims obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to computer software development and/or computer networking.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Petitioner further argues that “[w]ork experience can substitute for education, and additional education can substitute for work experience.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’541 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner (see PO Resp.), we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner states “[n]o terms require construction to resolve this Petition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. See PO Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 was anticipated by Rao.” slip op. at 25
Patent outcomesUS 8,589,541 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - Google LLC / Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless et al. v. Headwater Research LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00942 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 2–23, 26, 41–60, 63, 64, 91–152, and 155–171 are unpatentable; Rao anticipates some claims, and Rao-based combinations render the others obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to computer software development and/or computer networking.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Petitioner further argues that “[w]ork experience can substitute for education, and additional education can substitute for work experience.” Id. at 2–3 (citing Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 50–52). Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the field of the invention of the ’541 patent and not disputed by Patent Owner (see PO Resp.), we adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the person having ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states “[n]o terms require construction to resolve this Petition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not propose any claim constructions. See PO Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyOther
“157, and 171 are anticipated by Rao. Pet. 1, 19–39, 42. Petitioner’s arguments are supported by citations to the prior art and the testimony of Dr. Wolfe. See id. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, agree with them, and, therefore, adopt Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as our own.” slip op. at 26
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“anticipated by Rao. Pet. 1, 30–31, 33–42. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments for each of those dependent claims. See Pet. 30–31, 33–42. For each of those dependent claims, the Petition appears to only argue a theory of obvious. That is, the Petition never states that the additional limitation is disclosed by Rao. See id. For example, claim 26 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the policy is based on a background service class.” Ex. 1001, 112:49–52. We reproduce Petitioner’s arguments directed to claim 26 below: Rao’s policies 520 may “define prioritization” for network packets “based on whether an application is running in the foreground or the background.” [Ex. 1002] ¶ 182; id. ¶¶ 38–43, 180, 182, 188–89, 193, Figs. 5A, 5B. Each packet “may be placed and arranged in a priority order respective to all other . . . packets to provide a packet by packet prioritization across all applications 338a-338n and . . . network packets.” Id. ¶ 191. It would have been obvious to determine and apply a policy assigning a specific priority to packets associated with background applications, supra [1e]-[1f], and Rao thus discloses or renders obvious assigning a priority to network communications based on whether they are characterized as background services (class of services associated with application(s) running in the background of client 105), EX-1015 ¶¶195-96; supra [1e], [1f]. Pet. 33–34. Although the Petition sets forth why the claim limitation would have been obvious, there is no discussion as to how the additional limitation of claim 26—policy based on background class—is disclosed in Rao. See id. Similar arguments are presented for the other claims. See Pet. 30–31, 35–42. Because the Petition does not sufficiently show how the additional limitations recited in claims 20, 26, 58, 64, 165, and 169 were disclosed by Rao, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 20, 26, 58, 64, 165, and 169 were anticipated by Rao.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 8,589,541 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,589,541 - BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 1, 2025 · IPR2024-00703 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–58 were not shown unpatentable: the Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher combination fails to establish key limitations, and Ollivier was not shown to be a prior art printed publication.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We apply Patent Owner’s proposed definition, as it appears consistent with the field of the ’511 patent and the prior art and is consistent with testimony of Dr. Poulos and the cross-examination testimony of Dr. Berenholz. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the level of ordinary skill in the art may be reflected in the prior art itself); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 35–39; Ex. 2005, 55:5–17, 57:17–58:19. In our view, however, Petitioner’s proposed definition is not so different that our decision would change if we were to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s argument are persuasive. We agree with Patent Owner that a plain reading of the wherein clause requires the treating to begin at the introitus and extend at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. This construction is consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, which states: In typical embodiments, the length of the energy delivery element is about 1 to about 3 cm in length, in other embodiments it may be as long as about 4 cm. This is a length well adapted to treating the lower aspects of the vagina, wherein treatment by the method comprises contacting the vaginal epithelium in a region that extends from the introitus inward to a position about 3 to 4 cm inward from the introitus. In some embodiments of the invention, the method can b[e] practiced with a single row of parallel contract sites immediately inside the introitus. In other embodiments, the method may include deeper rows, or rows that overlap an initial row, while keeping the contact sites within the lower portion of the vagina. Ex. 1001, 3:28–40 (emphasis added); see also id. at 14:47–57. The ’511 patent Specification also states: “the portion of the vagina to be treated is a region between the introitus and a position located no further than about 3 to about 4 cm inward from the introitus.” Id. at 11:48–51 (emphasis added). Given the plain language of claim 1, consistent with the ’511 patent’s Specification, we construe “heating a portion of the vagina extending from the introitus inwardly to a location from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus” to require heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Patent Owner’s arguments is persuasive. The cited portion of Mosher does not explicitly state the location of the treatment area. Ex. 1006 ¶ 74. In it Reply, Petitioner additionally points to paragraph 54 of Mosher, which states: “Preferably, the location of the treatment volume of endopelvic fascia will be disposed along a length of the urethra between the bladder neck and the external meatus so as to avoid injuring nerves.” Pet. Reply 14 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 54). Petitioner argues that “[t]reating the vaginal wall adjacent to the mid-urethral region is within the claimed region of ‘from 1 cm to 3.5 cm in from the introitus.’” Pet. Reply 14–16. This, however, does not teach the claimed area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. The Petition fails to show that either Edwards or Mosher discloses heating a portion of the vagina beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no” slip op. at 26
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“In its Reply, Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to treat the area beginning at the introitus and extending at least the first centimeter into the vagina and up to 3.5 cm in from the introitus. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2–4, 16–17 (citing Pet. 35). The Petition’s argument is unpersuasive because it is conclusory and does not adequately address Edwards’s use of a speculum. Pet. 35. The Petition includes no persuasive explanation as to why it would have been obvious to modify Edwards to use the treatment blade without the speculum. See Pet. 22–24, 35–36. We determine that Petitioner fails to meet its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is unpatentable over Edwards, Ingle, and Mosher.” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 8,961,511 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,961,511 - PTAB · Sep 22, 2025 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–19 on all petition grounds and granted NXP’s motion to join the Samsung IPR, subject to stated conditions.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Because Petitioner presents substantively identical challenges to claims 1–19 of the ’886 patent based on the same prior art, evidence, and unpatentability theories in the Samsung IPR, Petitioner satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial for the same reasons the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial was satisfied in the Samsung IPR. See Samsung IPR Inst. Dec. 14–27.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted
“For the reasons stated by Petitioner in the Motion, and in the absence of any opposition by Patent Owner, we agree that Petitioner’s joinder to the Samsung IPR is appropriate and will not materially affect the trial schedule for the Samsung IPR. See Mot. 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“2. Timeliness As discussed above, “[a]ny request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). We instituted an inter partes review in the Samsung IPR on April 4, 2025. See Samsung IPR Inst. Dec. 1. Petitioner filed the Petition and Motion for Joinder on May 2, 2025. See P-TACTS, Filing Date Papers 1 (Pet.), 3 (Mot.). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b), Petitioner timely filed the Petition and Motion for Joinder. 3. Conclusion Whether the Petition Warrants Institution Because Petitioner (1) satisfies the “reasonable likelihood” standard for instituting trial; and (2) timely filed the Petition and the Motion for Joinder, the Petition warrants the institution of an inter partes review.” slip op. at 7
NonePatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - 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 · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00141 · APJ Ken B Barrett · IPR · Remand
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Nishida-based challenges.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted
“partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,749 B2 (“the ’749 patent,” Ex. 1001). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). The Petition challenges the patentability of claims 1–21 of the ’749 patent. Nike, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)2 filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”). With our authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 10) and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 13). We discretionarily denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Paper 20. Petitioner filed a request for Director Review of the Decision denying institution. Paper 21. Director Review was granted, the Decision denying institution of inter partes review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Board. Id. at 4. Specifically, the case was “remanded to the Board with instructions to consider Petitioner’s Nishida grounds and to determine whether the Petition should be instituted.” Id. at 3–4.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having considered the arguments and evidence presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one of the challenged claims of the ’749” slip op. at 2
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“In support of Petitioner’s position, Dr. Adanur testifies that “Nishida discloses that the unfinished surface area 1.1 is part of the web 1 itself,” that Nishida discloses that the computer-controlled process can (using Nishida’s phrase) “put in” up to seven different textile fibers or yarns into the web of material in one operation, and that, “[t]hus, Nishida discloses simultaneously knitting its layouts 2 and tongue 40 (each a ‘textile element’) with the unfinished surface area 1.1 (a ‘surrounding textile structure’).” Ex. 1002 ¶ 216 (citing Ex. 1022, 2:12–20, 4:47–55, 5:45–49). For purposes of institution, we credit that testimony over the testimony of Dr. Pastore, because, on the current record, we regard Dr. Adanur’s testimony as more consistent with the evidence. This and the other related issues may be explored more fully during the trial.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field of the ’749 patent in March 2004 would have been someone with at least a few years of experience in knit materials and knitting methods and machines that can be used in making footwear, or a bachelor’s degree in textile-related sciences, engineering, or industrial product design, or equivalent academic or work experience, including in the footwear industry. EX1002, ¶68. Such a person of ordinary skill would have at least a general understanding of general construction processes and materials used in the manufacturing process of fabric-based articles. For individuals with a lower educational level, a person could still be of ordinary skill in the art provided that person’s working experience compensates for any such lower educational level, or vice versa. See id. Pet. 23–24. Patent Owner states that, “[f]or purposes of this Preliminary Response, Nike applies Skechers’ definition for a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 14. Petitioner’s definition is consistent with the level of ordinary skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). For purposes of this decision, we apply Petitioner’s definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,266,749 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00638 · APJ Matthew S Meyers · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–11 are unpatentable: claims 1–3, 6–8, and 11 as obvious over Kim, and claims 4, 5, 9, and 10 as obvious over Kim and De Obaldia.
RulingsFinal written decision- 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). Petitioner adds, however, that “the claims are obvious in view of any reasonable definition of a POSITA [(Person of Skill in the Art)].” Id. Patent Owner responds that “[f]or purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 23 (citing Pet. 15). Patent Owner adds that Mr. Markison’s “knowledge and experience, which includes 13 years of designing and developing athletic shoes that embody the patent at issue here, far exceeds the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 24 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 43–44). Based on the full record, we determine that Petitioner’s proposed level of skill is reasonable and consistent with the ’760 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 neededDecided for patent owner
“In the Institution Decision, we declined to explicitly construe “athletic positioning” because we determined it was unnecessary in view of the claim language. Inst. Dec. 8. More particularly, we stated “independent claim 1 already appears to itself define the term ‘athletic positioning.’ In particular, the claim recites that the big toe area is at a lower position than the heel area and the small toe area.” Id. 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, 43:17–27, 43:30–40. The recitations setting forth a relationship between a “big toe area,” a “heel area,” and a “small toe area” translate into the relative heights proposed in Patent Owner’s construction. Patent Owner contends that the Board should adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it:” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, and Patent Owner’s counterarguments and find, on the complete trial record, that Petitioner demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Kim teaches or suggests “a foot platform that provides an athletic positioning of a big toe area at a lower position than a heel area,” as called for by claim 1. In this regard, we credit Mr. Delgatty’s Declaration testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art “would understand that, when worn, the toe area would be on the ground, and thus lower than the heel, and based on the sloped forefoot, the big toe would be lower than the small toe.” Pet. Reply 10 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 16). We also credit Mr. Delgatty’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood “that the shape and orientation of the sole (i.e., the platform on which an athlete stands) in relation to the ground is what determines if the foot is placed in an athletic position when in use.” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 23). We find Mr. Delgatty’s opinion to be reasonable and supported by Kim’s disclosure. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 37, 43, 44. Here, as Petitioner points out, “the ’760 patent distinguishes between the ‘sole’ and ‘cleats’ as separate components of the shoe” (Pet. Reply 12 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:62–64)), and claim 1 only “requires that the forefoot platform of the sole provide the big toe area at a lower position than the heel area and the small toe area” (id. (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 20)). When asked during deposition, Mr. Markison confirmed that “cleats” or “sport-specific bottom 190” may be “different item[s] in the shoe than the athletic-positioning sole.” Ex. 1023, 85:18–22. specific bottom,” it is not limited to a spike or cleat pattern, but also recites that it may be a “sport specific tread pattern.” Ex. 1001, 44:13–19. Based on the full record, we agree with Petitioner that “[w]hether or not a shoe has cleats, an athlete’s foot will be positioned the same with respect to the surface of the ground when in use, and thus obtain the same positioning benefits the ’760 patent purports to provide.” Pet. Reply 14 (citing Ex. 1022 ¶ 22). Accordingly, upon review of the information in the Petition and” slip op. at 27
- 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. 69–77; PO Sur-reply 26–29. Other than asserting that “the requisite nexus exists here” (PO Resp. 70), and citing to the Declaration testimony of Mr. Markison (id. (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 285)), Patent Owner’s response does not provide an analysis of Patent Owner’s product with respect to the claims of the ’760 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 ’760 patent” with reference to an exhibit from district court litigation. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 285 (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 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 objective indicia of nonobviousness is the direct result of unique characteristics of the claimed invention. Fox Factory, 944 F.3d at 1373–75; PO Resp. 69–77; PO Sur-reply 26–29. At best, Patent Owner merely implies that they are the result of unique characteristics of the claimed shoe. For our analysis below, even if nexus were shown, we identify additional reasons why we would give little weight to the asserted objective indicia of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 11,064,760 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,064,760 - Under Armour, Inc. v. Athalonz, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 10, 2025 · IPR2024-00640 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–5, 7, 9–15, and 17 are unpatentable: claims 10, 11, 15, and 17 over Won, and claims 1–5, 7, 9, and 12–14 over Won and Talarico ’911.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that 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. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 31). According to Petitioner, “the claims are obvious in view of any reasonable definition of a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” Id. at 21. For institution, we preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 4. “For purposes of this proceeding, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 17–18). Patent Owner contends that its declarant Mr. Markison “far exceeds the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art” and, because he is registered as a patent attorney and licensed as an attorney, “can offer good faith and objective opinions on the issues in this proceeding.” Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 11–13, 17–30, 42–44). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one 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. 20–21 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30); Inst. Dec. 9; Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; Ex. 2008 ¶ 44.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Petitioner notes that, although claim 1 recites a heel platform made of a “first material” and a forefoot platform made of a “second material,” the first and second materials can be the same based on Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation in related litigation. Pet. 27 n.1 (citing Ex. 1012, 30–44). Petitioner applies Patent Owner’s apparent interpretation to the challenges of this proceeding “[w]ithout conceding alternative arguments.” Id. At institution, we were persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments and adopted a construction that the “first” and “second” materials are “different in some manner.” Inst. Dec. 7–8. Patent Owner responds that we should maintain the same construction and disputes Petitioner’s evidence that the “first” and “second” materials can be the same material. PO Resp. 15–19 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Inst. Dec. 8, 12–13; Ex. 1012, Ex. E, 38, 52; Ex. 2014, 15). Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner should not be allowed to present new arguments or evidence in reply. Id. at 19–21. Petitioner replies that interpreting “first” and “second” materials to be different materials contradicts the plain language of the claims, the Specification, and Patent Owner’s infringement contentions. Pet. Reply 1–5 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Prelim. Resp. 16–17; PO Resp. 16–18; Ex. 1001, 10:9– 19, 17:52–54, 21:64–22:4, 27:47–51, Figs. 43, 49, claims 1, 6; Ex. 1023, 47:1–48:1, 215:6–217:12, 224:13–225:19; Ex. 1025, 319; Ex. 1026). Patent Owner replies that Petitioner presents new arguments and evidence in reply. PO Sur-reply 5–9 (citing Pet. 27 n.1; Inst. Dec. 13; PO Resp. 16–21; Pet. Reply 1–3, 14 n.1; Paper 19). Patent Owner also argues that, even if Petitioner’s asserted new arguments and evidence are considered, they fail to support an interpretation of “first” and “second” Resp. 16–17; Pet. Reply 1–3; Ex. 1001, 17:50–54, 27:50–54, Figs. 43, 93; Ex. 1023, 215:6–217:12; Ex. 2014, 19–22)” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“4. Other Terms Based on the full record, express interpretation of other terms is not necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. 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 13
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMotion to exclude, deniedMixed
“Patent Owner does not satisfy its “burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). Evidence of how the inventor viewed claim terms can be useful in considering claim interpretation, and, thus, we agree with Petitioner that the exhibit is relevant. For the reasons stated below, however, we do not need to rely on the exhibit. Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Exhibit 1024 is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 6
Patent outcomesUS 11,510,456 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,510,456
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.