• Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. / Thermaltake Inc. v. Chien-Hao ChenAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 17, 2026 · IPR2024-01230 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5 are unpatentable; substitute claims 6 and 7 are unpatentable, and the Revised Motion to Amend is denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “our Institution Decision comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’336 patent and the prior art of record. Inst. Dec. 15. Accordingly, we adopt the level of skill discussed in our Institution Decision. C.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Pharms. Inc. v. Amino Chemicals Ltd., 715 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, Patent Owner applies a different definition of “side,” in claim 1’s recitation of “an illumination area on at least two sides of the fan at top of the body,” to that definition used to understand “side[s] of the body,” discussed above. Specifically, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s dictionary definition of “side,” including “an area next to something” applies to “an illumination area on at least two sides of the fan at the top of the body.” See id. at 8–9.” slip op. at 17

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “Hasegawa, and Huang teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 3, and that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine those teachings with a reasonable expectation of success. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 136– 140; Ex. 1008, 8:4–15, 3:20–29. Accordingly, we determine that claim 3 would have been obvious over Lai and Huang, or Lai, Hasegawa, and Huang. F.” slip op. at 50

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “c) Conclusion We conclude that Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend adds new” slip op. at 90

  Patent outcomesUS 10,690,336 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,690,336
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2026 · IPR2024-01084 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8–18, 22–30, and 34–39 are unpatentable as obvious over Shiplacoff and over Shiplacoff combined with Nan.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience in the design and development of graphical user interfaces (GUIs), human-computer interfaces, or equivalents thereof. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner’s declarant, Loren Terveen, Ph.D., testifies that “[s]uch experience could be obtained through research and study in a graduate program or through comparable exposure through industry employment, and additional years of experience could substitute for the advanced-level degree.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner agrees with this definition. PO Resp. 13 (citing Dec. 5). As Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill appears commensurate with the subject matter before us, we apply Petitioner’s definition for purposes of this Decision. Also, the level of ordinary skill in the art can be evidenced by the references cited, and we find it commensurate with the cited references in this proceeding. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 5

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

    “according to the Phillips standard.” Pet. 4. Patent Owner contends that under the plain language of claim 1, the “one or more criteria” is satisfied when a “movement parameter” of “the second input” is detected to be “above a movement threshold.” PO Resp. 14. Patent Owner contends that under the plain language of claim 27, the “second one or more criteria” is satisfied when “a duration parameter” of the “second input” is detected to be “above a duration threshold.” Id. at 15. Patent Owner contends that the plain language of limitations [1j] and [1k] requires an operation capable of detecting a second input by a second contact that includes movement across a display in a direction, determining whether the second input meets or does not meet the recited criteria, and triggers performance of each of the corresponding display actions as appropriate. Id. at 15–19. Patent Owner 15. Id. at 21–23. Patent Owner contends that the plain language of limitations [27d]–[27f] recited in claim 27 require an operation that enables the device to detect a second input by a second contact that includes movement across the display in a direction, determine whether the second input meets or does not meet the two recited criteria, and trigger performance of each of the recited display actions as appropriate. Id. at 19– 20. Patent Owner contends that for “the second input” recited in limitations [1j] and [1k], “the second input” must be detected in the same operational context. Id. at 23–24. In particular, Patent Owner contends that limitations [1j] and [1k], and similar limitations recited in claims 15 and 27, “require a single, common contact event as the starting point of the claimed logic operations.” Id. at 24; see id. at 25–26. We do not need to determine whether Patent Owner’s proposed constructions are correct, because under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s proposed constructions, we find that the prior art would have rendered all challenged claims obvious as discussed below in our patentability analysis.” slip op. at 6

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “at 418; see also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is . . . a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”). Patent Owner’s contention and the supporting testimony of Dr. Madisetti does not address Shiplacoff’s teaching of using a gesture, such as Shiplacoff’s flick gesture, to return to launch screen. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen in finding that Shiplacoff’s disclosure that “returning to the launch screen . . . is performed by performing a gesture” (Ex. 1004 ¶ 99) such as a flicking gesture (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 126, 129; Ex. 1023 ¶ 13) teaches using a flicking gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. See Pet. 16, 22–24; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–53, 59; Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Reply 7–10. Because Dr. Terveen’s testimony is consistent with and supported by the teachings of Shiplacoff as a whole (in contrast to that of Dr. Madisetti), we credit the testimony of Dr. Terveen in finding that using a gesture to return from home screen to launch screen as taught by Shiplacoff, where the gesture is a flick gesture as taught by Shiplacoff, yields the predictable result of using a flick gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.” slip op. at 21

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

    “articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have used Shiplacoff’s flicking gesture to switch from full screen mode to the launch screen. PO Resp. 47–49. Petitioner contends that Shiplacoff’s swipe up gesture teaches limitation [1j] by including a movement parameter above a movement threshold. Pet. 17–23. Petitioner contends that Shiplacoff teaches that a user can perform another gesture to return to the home screen. Id. at 23. Petitioner contends that when a gesture different from the swipe up gesture is used to return to the home screen, a person of ordinary skill would have used a flicking gesture because the flicking gesture has a different movement parameter than the swipe up gesture, namely, a movement parameter that does not meet the movement threshold. Pet. 23– 24 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99–102, 167; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 60–61). We agree with Petitioner for the reasons given in the Petition and as discussed above. We reiterate that using a gesture to return from home screen to launch screen as taught by Shiplacoff, where the gesture is a flicking gesture as taught by Shiplacoff, yields the predictable result of using a flicking gesture to return from home screen to launch screen. Ex. 1023 ¶ 13; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 52–61; KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. We disagree with Patent Owner’s contention that Shiplacoff teaches away from using the flicking gesture to switch from full screen mode to the launch screen because, according to Patent Owner, Shiplacoff already uses the flick gesture to perform scrolling in full screen mode. PO Resp. 49–52 the same gesture in a given mode can be assigned to different functions depending on where, when, and how the gesture is input by the user, as discussed above. Reply 11–12 (discussing Shiplacoff’s teaching of associating the same tap gesture with different functions depending on where the tap occurs), 13–14 (discussing Duarte’s teaching of associating both a drag gesture and a scrolling gesture to the same mode). Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 16–19. We agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen, that based on the teachings of Shiplacoff (and, by incorporation, Duarte), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a flick started in area 102 or near an edge of screen 101 and continuing onto screen 101 would be distinguished from a flick entirely within screen 101 based on location, and would perform a different function. Ex. 1023 ¶¶ 18–19. We also agree with Petitioner and Dr. Terveen, that Duarte teaches associating a gesture with one function when a modifier key is not pressed, and associating the same gesture with a different function when the modifier key is pressed, such that a flick performed when the key is not pressed would perform one function such as scrolling and a flick performed when the key is pressed would perform another, such as changing the display mode. Reply 15 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 64; Ex. 1023 ¶ 20). We agree with Petitioner that Shiplacoff does not teach away from using a flicking gesture to change from full screen mode to home screen because it “does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.” Reply 10 (quoting Depuy Spine, 567 F.3d at1327).” slip op. at 25

  Patent outcomesUS 10,649,578 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,649,578
• Universal Electronics, Inc. / Gemstar Technology (Qinzhou) Co. Ltd. et al. v. ROKU, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 21, 2026 · IPR2022-00818 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claim 11 unpatentable under §103 over Wouters and Verzulli because Wouters’s fixer saves the combined codeset for reinstallation.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “We agree with Petitioner that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “combining . . . correct working codes from the scanned remote control code-sets into a new custom configuration code set” using Wouters’s “fixer,” which combines the codes into a custom codeset, gives it a name, such as “user1,” and stores it in a memory (the “RC code set data base”). See Pet. Reply 2; Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. This custom codeset includes a combination of the working codes previously tested and installed by the user. Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. We also find that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “installing . . . the combined correct working codes of the new custom configuration code set for use by the remote control.” Specifically, Wouters teaches that, when the remote control’s batteries die, “the user may easily reinstall the chosen code set by choosing ‘user1’ from the proposed list or immediately selecting ‘user1.’” Ex. 1009, 10:20–22 (emphasis added). This reinstallation is of the combined correct working codes of a new custom configuration codeset previously stored and named by the fixer, such as the “user1” codeset. Id. at 10:20–24. We find that Wouters’s “reinstallation” of the chosen code set (e.g., the “user1” codeset) is an “installation” of that codeset. The claim merely recites “installing” the codeset, and does not distinguish between an initial installation and a re-installation, such as after the batteries of the remote control die. Ex. 1001, 10:45. Patent Owner also does not point to anything in the ’875 patent Specification or the other intrinsic evidence that would limit the “installing” in limitation 11[e] to an initial installation, or that would exclude a re-installation after the remote control’s batteries die. Consequently, we find that Wouters’s reinstallation of the codeset after the batteries die is an “install[ation]” as required by limitation 11[e]. We further agree with Petitioner that the Wouters-Verzulli combination discloses that these operations would be performed using a processor and memory, which Patent Owner does not appear to dispute. FWD 52; Pet. 24–27, 37; PO” slip op. at 20

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)); see In re Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 832 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “combining . . . correct working codes from the scanned remote control code-sets into a new custom configuration code set” using Wouters’s “fixer,” which combines the codes into a custom codeset, gives it a name, such as “user1,” and stores it in a memory (the “RC code set data base”). See Pet. Reply 2; Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. This custom codeset includes a combination of the working codes previously tested and installed by the user. Ex. 1009, 10:18–20. We also find that the above-quoted paragraph of Wouters teaches “installing . . . the combined correct working codes of the new custom configuration code set for use by the remote control.” Specifically, Wouters teaches that, when the remote control’s batteries die, “the user may easily reinstall the chosen code set by choosing ‘user1’ from the proposed list or immediately selecting ‘user1.’” Ex. 1009, 10:20–22 (emphasis added). This reinstallation is of the combined correct working codes of a new custom configuration codeset previously stored and named by the fixer, such as the “user1” codeset. Id. at 10:20–24. We find that Wouters’s “reinstallation” of the chosen code set (e.g., the “user1” codeset) is an “installation” of that codeset. The claim merely recites “installing” the codeset, and does not distinguish between an initial installation and a re-installation, such as after the batteries of the remote control die. Ex. 1001, 10:45. Patent Owner also does not point to anything in the ’875 patent Specification or the other intrinsic evidence that would limit the “installing” in limitation 11[e] to an initial installation, or that would exclude a re-installation after the remote control’s batteries die. Consequently, we find that Wouters’s reinstallation of the codeset after the batteries die is an “install[ation]” as required by limitation 11[e]. We further agree with Petitioner that the Wouters-Verzulli combination discloses that these operations would be performed using a processor and memory, which Patent Owner does not appear to dispute. FWD 52; Pet. 24–27, 37; PO” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “We also find that Petitioner has not forfeited its argument that Wouters’s fixer and reinstallation functionality satisfies limitation 11[e]. The Petition pointed to Wouters’s “fixer” for limitation 11[e], and cited Dr. Houh’s Declaration specifically identifying and quoting Wouters’s disclosure of reinstallation at page 10, lines 14 through 24. Pet. 35 (quoting Ex. 1009, 10:14–20) (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 167); Ex. 1003 ¶ 167 (quoting Ex. 1009, 10:14–24). We find that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the Petition and its cited evidence (including paragraph 167 of Dr. Houh’s first Declaration) would be apprised that Petitioner was relying on the portion of Wouters describing the “fixer” and reinstallation functionality.” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 8,378,875 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,378,875
• Smaxtec Inc. / Smaxtec Animal Care GmbH v. St Reproductive Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01067 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–7, 9, and 10 are unpatentable: claims 5 and 6 are anticipated by Harvey and Riskey, claim 7 is obvious over Harvey and Rettedal, and claims 9 and 10 are obvious over Harvey and …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Considering the entire record, we determine that Petitioner “did not make out its obviousness case in its petition” and its arguments on reply “effectively abandoned its petition in favor of a new argument.” Wasica at 1286. To the extent Petitioner asserts the claims would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey in the Petition, it does so using a merely conclusory statement that “[t]o the extent Patent Owner alleges that either Harvey or Riskey fails to teach any claim element, that element is provided by the other reference.” See Pet. 42; Wasica at 1286. And, as discussed in our Institution Decision, the Petition at a minimum does not explain what reference is the primary versus second reference, and what elements should be combined to reach the claimed invention. See Sisvel, 82 F.4th at 1364. reference to be modified with Riskey’s bolus and data compression. See Pet. Reply 15–17. Rather than explaining how its original petition was correct, Petitioner’s subsequent arguments amount to an entirely new theory of prima facie obviousness absent from the Petition. See Wasica, 853 F.3d at 1286; see also Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the expedited nature of IPRs bring with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute”). We decline to engage in this new argument. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not met is burden to show that claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious over Harvey and Riskey. G. Asserted Obviousness of Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal” slip op. at 54

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Riskey discloses “said sensor signal varies based on a corresponding change in one or more physiological parameters of said ruminant animal” (limitation 5[B]). We find Riskey’s description of temperature sensors to be persuasive evidence on this issue. Riskey discloses sensors for measuring changing animal characteristics, e.g., temperature, over time. Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 35, 44; see also id. ¶¶ 75, 76 (detecting temperature changes). We further credit Dr. Young’s testimony that one skilled in the art would understand that generated sensor signals, e.g., temperature, would change over time, whereby the sensor signal varies based on any corresponding change in the ruminant physiological parameter that the signal represents. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 84, 85; see Cont’l Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“This modest flexibility in the rule that ‘anticipation’ requires that every element of the claims appear in a single reference accommodates the reference; that is, where technological facts are known to those in the field of the invention.”). We consider Dr. Kan’s testimony that Riskey is silent as to details about the sensor signal, but are not persuaded because the testimony appears to contradict Riskey’s disclosure of a bolus including sensors for monitoring changes in animal characteristics, generating animal characteristic messages, i.e., signals, and wirelessly transmitting data corresponding to the monitored characteristics. See Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 170–174; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25, 63, 67, 68, 75–78, 101. Given Riskey’s express description of monitoring animal characteristics over time, we agree with Petitioner’s argument that Riskey discloses that said sensor signal varies based on changes to the animal’s physiological parameters.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the claimed priority date would have “had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related or equivalent field, and three or more years of experience researching, developing, designing and/or evaluating sensor systems for humans or other animals.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 35) (emphasis added). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. See PO Resp. 12 (citing Ex. 2006 ¶¶ 19–20). On the entire record, we determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrases “at least” and “or more,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person 5 In the present record, neither party presents arguments or evidence relating to secondary considerations.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We construe claim terms according to the standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc), i.e., as construed in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under Phillips, claim terms are afforded “their ordinary and customary meaning.” Id. at 1312. “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. Neither party expressly seeks a specific claim construction or definition for any claim term. See Pet. 10; PO Resp. 12. To the extent Patent Owner seeks to interpret claim 7 in view of the Specification, we address that argument in our discussion of claim 7, below. See infra, § III.G.3. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing 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.”)). D. Asserted Anticipation of Claims 5 and 6 by Riskey” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,231,644 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,231,644
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 14, 2026 · IPR2024-01088 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 9, 12, 19–22, 24–32, 36–43, 47, 58, 59, 63, 71, 74, 81–84, 86–94, 97–105, 109, 119–121, and 124 are unpatentable over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin; claims 35 and 57 are not.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we noted that Petitioner’s definition left it unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition would be considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree,” and did not adopt the portion of the definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for a degree. Dec. on Inst. 9. Additionally we did not adopt Petitioner’s proposed additional requirement that one of ordinary skill “would have possessed extensive background knowledge and understanding of the pertinent technologies employed by the ’758 patent.” Id. We adopted, for the purposes of the Decision on Institution, the portion of the definition proposed by Petitioner requiring “a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers” as consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’758 patent and prior art of record and supported by declarant testimony. Cockburn’s testimony regarding it (Ex. 2007, 9:7–23), and, for the same reasons discussed in the Decision on Institution, we adopt it here.” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

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

    “at first contending that these limitations require a continuous touch meeting both limitations; however, Patent Owner withdrew the request to construe the claim to require one continuous gesture to meet the two limitations, agreeing with Petitioner’s assertion that either one continuous gesture or two separate gestures could meet the limitations. PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3– 5; PO Sur-reply 3–4; Tr. 28:20–29:2. Because we agree with the parties that this is the correct construction, there is no remaining controversy regarding this construction that would require us to decide any claim construction issue. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10

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

    “We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the snapshot menu and pressand-hold gesture of Martyn with Chaudhri as Petitioner proposes, resulting in a device that provides a contextual shortcut sub-menu of common application functions in response to a touch-and-hold user input. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony in Petitioner’s showing that Martyn’s contextual allow the user to accomplish recurring tasks more quickly. Pet. 15–17 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61–62, 66–67). Contrary to Patent Owner’s contentions, Petitioner provides a showing of a motivation to use, in the resulting combination, both Martyn’s menu and its mechanism for calling the menu. Pet. 15–17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Ex. 1067 ¶ 21. We credit Dr. Cockburn’s supported testimony of the motivation for the combination Petitioner proposes, using the teachings of Martyn identifying its App Snapshot called through a press-and-hold as allowing a user access to multiple options pertaining to one application at one time in one menu, for ease and speed of navigation. Pet. 15–18; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 61, 63 & n.3, 68 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 4–8, 15); Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 20, 21. Additionally, we credit Dr. Cockburn’s testimony regarding the analogousness of the touch-and-hold mechanism to trigger the menu to the press-and-hold trigger for the menu in Martyn, which Patent Owner criticizes as unsubstantiated (PO Sur-reply 18) but we find to be supported by record evidence. Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 49–53, 63); Reply Br. 17 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 16–22), 20 (citing Ex. 1067 ¶¶ 30) ; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53 (citing, inter alia, Ex. 1022 ¶ 183), 63 & n.3.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,758 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,758
• Vizio, Inc. / LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00300 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious over either of two combinations: Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth; or Kim, Ma, Hunt, and Hunleth.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “An expert witness must be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion. Fed. R. Evid. 702. We deem Dr. Houh to have the requisite qualifications to provide opinion testimony, including obtaining “a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science from MIT, where his research focused on building high-speed networks and developing applications for remote video capture, processing, and display—technologies central to the ’384 Patent.” Pet. Reply 29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 10–13). The Board has broad discretion to assign weight to be accorded expert testimony. Yorkey v. Diab, 601 F.3d 1279, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Dr. Houh’s industry experience establishes that he at least possesses ordinary skill in the art, and we do not disqualify his testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 7, 10–13. We consider the factors raised by the parties in weighing his testimony with other evidence provided, including the facts and data on which it is based, in reaching our determinations here.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in August of 2012 would have been knowledgeable and familiar with [user interfaces] in consumer products that are pertinent to the ’384 Patent. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in Electrical, Software, or Computer Engineering, or equivalent training, and approximately two years of experience working in the field of television and/or digital video systems, human-computer interaction, or related technologies. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Pet. 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 21). Patent Owner agreed with and adopted this definition. PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2002 ¶ 40. The definition proposed by Petitioner is consistent with the problems and solutions in the ’384 patent and prior art of record and is supported by expert testimony. We adopt this definition.” slip op. at 13

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

    “As neither the claim language nor the specification provides the necessary support for a construction requiring exclusion of specific information from either view, we decline to adopt such a construction. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim constructions that exclude a particular element must find support either in the words of the claim or through “express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.”). As reviewed above, the claim language and specification, while describing different things that would be present in elements could not be common to both views. To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction specifies elements to be excluded, we find no support for these exclusions, and in fact, find opposite language in the specification of the ’384 patent: while Patent Owner proposes that a detail view must not include “information that is associated with a series,” the specification describes a detail view as provided in the case where “a series with only a single episode” has been selected. Ex. 1001, 44:64–65. This is consistent with the possibility in the claims that a detail view may relate to “a single show.” Ex. 1001, 56:66, 57:36, 58:51. As discussed, the claims recite that a detail view is provided “if [a] selection . . . is for one of a movie or single show” and that the detail view “presents information about a selected item of the VOD content” and a that a digest view is provided “if the selection in the collection view is for a series” and that digest view “provides a listing of two or more episodes associated with a series.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 57:23–27, 57:31–37. Thus, by the language of the claims themselves, the provision of “either a detail view or a digest view” relates to the received third selection and is based on what that selection was. The “either . . . or” in the claim thus relates directly to the third selection and not to the resulting views. This is consistent with Dr. Surati’s testimony. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 67 (The claims “present[] the third selection as a binary choice: either the third selection is a series (in which case the digest view is presented), or the third selection is a movie or single show (in which case the detail view is presented).” While Patent Owner insists that the language and logic of the claim “excludes providing a view that can be both a detail view and a digest view,” (PO Resp. 21) we determine that this proposed negative limitation finds no support through the Therefore, we decline to adopt the proposed claim construction that further limits the plain language of the claims. Having rejected the proposed limitations on the plain language of the claims, we find that no further construction of the claim language is required in order to address the dispute before us. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the combination of Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, including Petitioner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined and used the details regarding a content provider user interface provided in TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, to provide details relating to the user interfaces provided by a CP provider on an intelligent television, such as that of Kim. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–110, 112. We additionally determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See id. ¶¶ 113– 119.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 9,578,384 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,578,384
• Vizio, Inc. v. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00723 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12 are unpatentable as obvious under §103 over either Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, or Kim, Ma, Hunt, and Hunleth.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “As neither the claim language nor the specification provides the necessary support for a construction requiring exclusion of specific information from either view, we decline to adopt such a construction. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claim constructions that exclude a particular element must find support either in the words of the claim or through “express disclaimer or independent lexicography in the written description that would justify adding that negative limitation.”). As reviewed above, the claim language and specification, while describing different things that would be present in elements could not be common to both views. To the extent Patent Owner’s proposed construction specifies elements to be excluded, we find no support for these exclusions, and in fact, find opposite language in the specification of the ’384 patent: while Patent Owner proposes that a detail view must not include “information that is associated with a series,” the specification describes a detail view as provided in the case where “a series with only a single episode” has been selected. Ex. 1001, 44:64–65. This is consistent with the possibility in the claims that a detail view may relate to “a single show.” Ex. 1001, 56:66, 57:36, 58:51. As discussed, the claims recite that a detail view is provided “if [a] selection . . . is for one of a movie or single show” and that the detail view “presents information about a selected item of the VOD content” and a that a digest view is provided “if the selection in the collection view is for a series” and that digest view “provides a listing of two or more episodes associated with a series.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 57:23–27, 57:31–37. Thus, by the language of the claims themselves, the provision of “either a detail view or a digest view” relates to the received third selection and is based on what that selection was. The “either . . . or” in the claim thus relates directly to the third selection and not to the resulting views. This is consistent with Dr. Surati’s testimony. See Ex. 2002 ¶ 67 (The claims “present[] the third selection as a binary choice: either the third selection is a series (in which case the digest view is presented), or the third selection is a movie or single show (in which case the detail view is presented).” While Patent Owner insists that the language and logic of the claim “excludes providing a view that can be both a detail view and a digest view,” (PO Resp. 21) we determine that this proposed negative limitation finds no support through the Therefore, we decline to adopt the proposed claim construction that further limits the plain language of the claims. Having rejected the proposed limitations on the plain language of the claims, we find that no further construction of the claim language is required in order to address the dispute before us. See Nidec Motor Corp., 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 25

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

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertions regarding the combination of Kim, TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, and Hunleth, including Petitioner’s assertion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. We determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined and used the details regarding a content provider user interface provided in TechnoBuffalo, MissingRemote, Hunt, to provide details relating to the user interfaces provided by a CP provider on an intelligent television, such as that of Kim. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 104–106, 109–110, 112. We additionally determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. See id. ¶¶ 113– 119.” slip op. at 38

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Our rules provide that a petitioner must include “[a] full statement of the reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence including material facts, and the governing laws, rules, and precedent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a). Our rules also state that “[a] reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding . . . patent owner response.” Id. § 42.23(b). “‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean proceed in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the positions taken in a prior filing.” PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019)15 (“CTPG”), 74. A petitioner “may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Id. at 73. “Examples of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence necessary to make out a prima facie case for the patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed” slip op. at 49

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

    “We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that each of the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view and the MissingRemote 1:54 view teaches or suggests the presentation of “information about a set of the VOD content that are associated with a series,” as recited. Petitioner sufficiently shows the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view is a digest view as it presents the “year, rating, number of episodes . . . , [and] episode lengths” for the displayed series. See Pet. 42 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 165). Similarly, Petitioner sufficiently shows that MissingRemote 1:54 view presents episode titles about episodes in the displayed season. See id. at 44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 171). Petitioner argues alternatively that each of these would have been presented upon selection of a series in its proposed combination. Pet. 42–43, 44. We determine, in both cases, that presenting information regarding multiple individual episodes to be a sufficient showing that each presents “information about a set of the 13 We note that, applying Patent Owner’s requested claim construction for “providing either a detail view . . . or a digest view . . .” in full would lead to the same result with respect to, for example, the TechnoBuffalo 1:09 view and the Missing Remote 1:54 view. Each of these teach “a view of information about a set of the VOD content that are associated with a series without information only about a single episode” (as they contain information regarding multiple episodes, see supra footnote 10 and PO Surreply 6) but not “a view of information about a single episode without information that is associated with a series.” Additionally, Petitioner persuasively argues that the prior art demonstrates that “a POSITA would have avoided using UI designs for a TV series to display a single movie, and vice versa. Pet. 49–50 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 183–184) digest view. Additionally, Petitioner sufficiently shows the presentation of a screen including information about a movie if a movie has been selected from a collection view, and information about a set of content associated with a series if a series was selected, as per the recitations of limitations 1.6 and 1.7 of claim 1. TechnoBuffalo and MissingRemote teach digest view screens relating to a series selection, Hunt and Hunleth teach information screens responsive to a movie or single show selection, and the combination and cited testimony support the provision of the appropriate screen in response to the user’s selection from a collection view, as detailed above with respect to Petitioner’s allegations.” slip op. at 44

  Patent outcomesUS 9,578,384 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Markman · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,578,384
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Calabrese Stemer LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00368 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable as anticipated by Horie; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art that we adopted in the Institution Decision is supported by the testimony of Dr. Akl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Patent Owner states that it agrees with that definition, while also proposing a broader definition that includes those with other qualifications. PO Resp. 2. Although Patent Owner argues that “the supporting evidence [for its addition] is broadly present in the case, namely, in the Patent-in-Suit and the associated intrinsic evidence” (PO Sur-reply 3 n.6), Patent Owner does not direct us to any specific portion of the record. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”). Additionally, while Patent Owner proposes expanding the definition, Patent Owner has not explained how that difference would materially affect the outcome of this proceeding. PO Resp. 2; PO Sur-reply 3 & nn. 4, 6. Dr. Akl uses Petitioner’s definition in his testimony (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 22, 23) and Patent Owner makes no argument regarding how, if we adopted Patent Owner’s broader definition, Dr. Akl’s conclusions would be affected. Patent Owner’s use of its definition does not describe the conclusions of one “educated in general physics” differently to one of ordinary skill as defined by Petitioner. PO Sur-reply 6. Patent Owner does not present declarant testimony regarding knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art under any definition.3 For these reasons, we maintain the definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art we adopted in the Decision on Institution: a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had experience in the hardware and software used in the field of securely transmitting and processing authorization requests over wired and wireless networks, such as requests for the processing of financial transactions, and a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have one or two years of experience with wired and wireless 3 See infra footnote 5. as financial transactions. Less experience is necessary with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, less education is necessary with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Having analyzed the arguments and the evidence cited by Patent Owner, we do not agree. We begin with the claim language, which does not further describe the two transmission channels, let alone contradict the plain meaning. Ex. 1001, 6:5–19. Dependent claims also shed no additional light. Certain claims further specify transmission-channel-related requirements: that the first transmission channel be “selected from the group consisting of wireless and landline channels” (claim 7); that the request received via the first transmission channel be “provided via the Internet” (claim 5); or that the notifying step (via a second transmission channel) comprise “sending an SMS message to the customer (claim 2). Id. at 6:20–21, 6:28–29, 6:33–35. No claims further restrict claim 1 by describing both transmission channels. Id. Claim 9 requires that the notification be “substantially concurrent,” but nothing in the record establishes that substantially concurrent authorization and notification would require non-overlapping transmission channels, or that an overlap in the transmission channels, even if it did “encumber” the authorization process with the notification process, would prevent the processes from being “substantially concurrent.” While Patent Owner presents arguments about “the gist” of the invention (PO Resp. 4) and describes “an immediate separation of the two processes” as being disclosed by Figures 1 and 2 of the ’564 patent’s specification, we do not see in the specification an indication of a special disavowal of a broader scope. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316–1317; PO Resp. 13 (“The specification of the ‘564 Patent does not express any intent to impart a novel meaning to the term distinct.”). Although we agree with Patent Owner that Figure 1 illustrates transmission channels that are separate and non-overlapping, we do not see any indication that this is more than a description of preferred embodiments or that there was a limitation of the invention to these embodiments, and our reviewing court “has repeatedly ‘cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The specification similarly does not support that Figure 2 is intended as limiting.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “Because we do not adopt Patent Owner’s construction (including considering its arguments regarding speed and security of transmissions in the ’564 patent), and instead adopt a construction encompassing overlapping between distinct transmission channels, see supra Section II.C.1, we determine that the requirement of limitation 1d that “the second transmission channel [must be] distinct from the first transmission channel” is disclosed by the different connections, different hardware elements, and independent operation of the two transmission channels identified in Horie, even though they overlap to some extent. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 44, Fig. 1; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 224–227; see PO Resp. 9. Lastly, Horie discloses that the authorization of a transaction occurs without requiring a response from the customer. Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 57, 58, 73; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 232–233. For these reasons, we determine Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 was anticipated by Horie.” slip op. at 29

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

    “Obviousness Over Horie Petitioner additionally argues that each of claims 1–9 are obvious over Horie. Pet. 38–43. Because we determine that the challenged claims are anticipated by Horie, we do not address the parties’ arguments regarding those claims based on an alternate ground. See Boston Sci. Scimed, Inc. v. Cook Gp. Inc., 809 F. App’x 984, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We agree that the Board need not address issues that are not necessary to the resolution of the proceeding.”).” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 8,783,564 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,783,564
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Calabrese Stemer LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00369 · APJ Andreas Baltatzis · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 are unpatentable: claims 1–2 and 6–7 as anticipated, and claims 3–5 as obvious over Horie and Kobayashi.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time the invention was made “would have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related study, and would have at least one or two years of experience with wired and wireless networks used to securely process requests for authorization of activity such as financial transactions.” Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Additionally, Petitioner contends that “[l]ess experience is necessary with additional education (e.g., a Master’s degree), and likewise, less education is necessary with additional work experience (e.g., 5–6 years).” Id. Patent Owner does not oppose or comment on Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. We determine this level of skill, with the exception of the open-ended phrase “at least,” which we remove from Petitioner’s proposal, comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ’706 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 10

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

    “construction.” Pet. 8. However, Petitioner explains the term “merchant’s” recited in independent claims 1 and 6. Id.; see Ex. 1001, 5:54, 5:56, 6:52. The possessive term “merchant’s” is not followed by a subject noun. See id. Petitioner contends that during prosecution of the parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310 B2, “the applicant explained that the ‘secure network and the ‘payment guarantee’ channel are illustrated between the acquirer 8 [sic] and the modem 5 of the merchant’s terminal.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1013, 45). Accordingly, Petitioner asserts that both instances of “merchant’s” should be read as “merchant’s terminal.” Id. Institution Decision (Inst. Dec. 11), Petitioner adds that Patent Owner in a related proceeding explained “the expression may refer to anything in possession of, or under the control of the merchant, as the use of the possessive form implies.” Pet. Reply 2 (citing IPR2024-00367, Paper 10 (Patent Owner Response), 4)10. This explanation accords with Petitioner’s argument that “merchant’s” includes least a “merchant’s terminal.” Accordingly, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s argument and interpret “merchant’s” as at least including a “merchant’s terminal.”” slip op. at 11

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

    “We need not construe explicitly any other claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (stating 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 12

  • BurdenDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner argues that Horie anticipates claims 1 and 2. Pet. 21–30. As discussed above, Patent Owner has not presented any arguments in a Response. The burden however remains on Petitioner, so we examine the Petition’s contentions to determine if they show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Horie anticipates claims 1 and 2.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,954,706 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,954,706
• Askeladden L.L.C. v. Calabrese Stemer LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00367 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4 are unpatentable as anticipated by Horie; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground and dismissed Petitioner’s motion to exclude as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We maintain the definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art that we adopted in the Institution Decision. First, it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Akl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 22. Second, Patent Owner states that it adopts that definition. PO Resp. 3. Third, to the extent Patent Owner proposes expanding the definition, Patent Owner has not explained how that difference would materially affect the outcome of this proceeding. Id. Fourth, Patent Owner does not point to sufficient evidence to support its position. Id. Although Patent Owner argues that “the supporting evidence [for its addition] is broadly present in the case, namely, in the Patent-in-Suit and the associated intrinsic evidence,” Patent Owner does not direct us to any specific portion of the record. See id. We decline to search the record to find the evidence that supports it. See United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”); DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 866–67 (7th Cir. 1999) (“A brief must make all arguments accessible to the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”).” slip op. at 9

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

    “As discussed below, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Horie anticipates claims 1 under Patent Owner’s proposed construction. See Section II.E.3. Because we only construe limitations “to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,” we do not expressly construe this limitation. See Nidec, 868 F.3d 1017 (quoting Vivid, 200 F.3d at 803).” slip op. at 12

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “preserved the objection by filing a timely motion to exclude. Mot. Exclude. Specifically, Petitioner argues that we should exclude Exhibit 2001 for three reasons: (1) it is untimely and prejudicial (37 C.F.R. §§ 42.23(b), 42.53(b); Fed. R. Evid. 403), (2) hearsay (Fed. R. Evid. 802), and (3) the best evidence rule (Fed. R. Evid. 1002). Id. The Stemer Declaration is used only to support Patent Owner’s arguments with respect to secondary considerations.5 PO Sur-reply 19–22; Ex. 2001; Ex. 2002. Because we do not reach obviousness, see infra Section II.F, we do not consider the Stemer Declaration, and we therefore dismiss the motion to exclude as moot.” slip op. at 13

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

  Patent outcomesUS 7,357,310 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,357,310

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.