• Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00058 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, and 18–20 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish its challenges by a preponderance of the evidence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “IV. CONCLUSION Weighing the competing evidence and testimony, we determine that Petitioner fails to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Challenged Claims of the ’494 patent are unpatentable.” slip op. at 85

  • ExcludeNot reached

    “III. PETITIONER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Petitioner moves to exclude Exhibits 2034–2038, paragraphs 38 and” slip op. at 84

  Patent outcomesUS 9,158,494 not shown unpatentable
  Nonecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,158,494
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 15, 2026 · IPR2024-01137 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7 and 9–23 were not shown unpatentable under § 103 because the asserted combinations failed to teach the claimed mouthpiece movement or bite-actuated compression.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Trove contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products” and that “[m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa.” Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 26). While CamelBak offers a “slightly different” level of skill in the art, it nonetheless “discerns no material difference between the definitions provided by the parties for purposes of the 2 JP 2002-211613, published July 31, 2002 (Ex. 1004, “Nakajima”). 3 US 6,070,767, issued June 6, 2000 (Ex. 1005, “Gardner”). 4 WO 2004/063042, published July 29, 2004 (Ex. 1006, “Ribarits”). 5 US 4,485,963, issued Dec. 4, 1984 (Ex. 1007, “Panicci”). 6 US 6,523,711 B1, issued Feb. 25, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Hughes”). Board’s decision on the patentability of the ’255 patent.” PO Resp. 14–15. That being the case, we adopt Trove’s proposed definition of the level of skill in the art, as it is reasonable and consistent with what is reflected in the asserted prior art and the specification of the ’255 patent. B. Claim Construction” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner

    “not move in a circular path that maintains a constant radius about the axis of rotation defined by McDonough’s axle 30, but instead engages in up-and-down translational motion (red arrows) relative to axle 30. Thus, we understand CamelBak’s arguments during reexamination to have distinguished the purely rotational (i.e., circular) motion of the claimed mouthpiece from a mouthpiece that moves with a translational component relative to the pivotal axis. In sum, this reexamination history shows that, by distinguishing over the translational motion of McDonough’s mouthpiece, CamelBak limited the claimed mouthpiece to one that (1) maintains a circular path of constant radius about the pivotal mount’s axis of rotation, and (2) does not include a path that has a translational component relative to the pivotal axis. See Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership, 778 F.3d 1320, 1323 & 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Any explanation, elaboration, or qualification presented by the inventor during patent examination is relevant, for the role of claim construction is to capture the scope of the actual invention that is disclosed, described, and patented.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[T]hrough statements made during prosecution or reexamination an applicant for a patent or a patent owner, as the case may be, may commit to a particular meaning for a patent term, which meaning is then binding in litigation.”) (emphasis added); see also Univ. of Massachusetts v. L’Oreal S.A., 36 F.4th 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“The prosecution history, in particular, may be critical in interpreting disputed claim terms, and even where prosecution history statements do not rise to the level of unmistakable disavowal, they do inform the claim construction.”) (internal quotations omitted).” slip op. at 17

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

    “Those detailed descriptions demonstrate that “adapted to,” as recited in claims 1 and 20, means that the resilient mouthpiece is specifically designed and configured to dispense fluid as a result of a user biting the mouthpiece, rather than merely being “capable of” being compressed. See Giannelli, 739 F.3d at 1379–80. Indeed, as disclosed, a distinct benefit of the resilient mouthpiece being bite-actuated “is that a user may position the drink bottle (and mouthpiece) to a desired drinking orientation, and even a partially or completely inverted orientation, without drink fluid being dispensed from the mouthpiece” until the user bites upon the mouthpiece to commence fluid flow through self-sealing valve to the user. Id. at 10:9–19. Thus, the intrinsic evidence, i.e., the specification and figures of the ’255 patent, confirm that the phrase “adapted to” means “designed or configured to” and is not satisfied by mere hypothetical capability. That is, as claimed, the resilient mouthpiece is designed or configured to compress based on actual forces applied by a user’s teeth, as opposed to merely being capable of compression based on the inherent nature of the mouthpiece’s material. C. Obviousness” slip op. at 24

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

    “Although we agree with Trove that Nakajima’s mouthpiece engages in up-and-down movement relative to the pivot axis identified in Trove’s annotated figures, we disagree that Nakajima’s mouthpiece is “pivotal about an axis defined by the pair of lateral projections as [they] rotate within the pair of sockets,” as required by claim 1. As discussed above, the proper construction of this claim limitation requires that the mouthpiece moves with rotational motion in a circular path of constant radius about the pivotal axis defined by the pair of lateral projections. See supra § II.B.1. Nakajima, on the other hand, discloses that its mouthpiece moves with translational motion, i.e., up-and-down movement, relative to the pivotal axis defined by lateral projections 19 of Nakajima’s lid 4—“[T]he mouthpiece moves up and down in conjunction with the opening and closing of the lid.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3 (emphasis added); see also id., Abstract (“[T]he mouthpiece 2 moves up and down in conjunction with the opening and closing of the lid 4.”). Indeed, although Trove relies exclusively on Nakajima’s disclosure of up-and-down movement for the mouthpiece, Trove never explains how such up-and-down movement equates to rotational motion required by the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor can it.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,676,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,676,255
• Trove Brands, LLC v. Camelbak Products, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00858 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5–7 and 16–19 were not shown unpatentable under § 102 or § 103 because the cited references failed to disclose the claimed closure retention mechanism.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. “closure retention mechanism” Trove proposes that “closure retention mechanism” should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See Pet. 18–19; Pet. Reply 1. CamelBak agrees. See PO Resp. 8. Indeed, subsequent to our institution decision, the district court in the parallel action held that the “closure retention mechanism” is a means-plus-function term governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). See Ex. 2010, at 5–6. We see no reason to depart from that holding and adopt the district court’s reasoning in that regard as our own. See id. at 6–8.” slip op. at 7

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

    “We agree with CamelBak that the plain language of the claim imposes a temporal condition on when the closure is received by the closure retention mechanism, namely, only after it is removed from the drink spout. In other words, the closure cannot be in engagement with, i.e., “received by,” the closure retention mechanism while it remains on the drink spout. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which repeatedly states that spaced-apart tabs 56 “engage” the closure when it is removed from the spout and moved to the stowed position. Ex. 1001, 8:58–60 (“tabs 56 . . . are configured to selectively engage and retain, or otherwise grip, the closure in the stowed position”); 9:32–39 (“when the closure is positioned between and/or otherwise in engagement with the tabs, the tabs engage the closure across the maximum width, such as with the tabs resiliently deflecting, bending, or compressing to accommodate the greater width of the closure”); 11:36–39 (“the closure retention mechanism 54 may be configured to engage . . . the closure to operatively retain the closure in its stowed configuration.”); 13:26–31 (“When the closure is operatively positioned within the closed perimeter of the handle into its stowed position . . . such closure is compressed slightly.”) (emphases added). Moreover, the specification describes this engagement as occurring by means of a “friction-fit” or “snap-fit” arrangement (id. at 8:50–52, 14:33– 36), which confirms that the closure is not permanently engaged with the tabs, but rather moved into engagement with the tabs, i.e., “received by the closure retention mechanism” per the plain language of the claim. Thus, the intrinsic evidence—the claim language and the specification—supports a construction that imposes a temporal condition on the recited function of the claimed “closure retention mechanism” such that it receives the closure only after the closure has been removed from the drink spout, meaning the closure is not engaged with the closure retention mechanism before it is selectively removed from the drink spout.” slip op. at 13

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

    “3. “retain the closure in a stowed position” CamelBak contends that this limitation should be construed to mean “to hold or keep the closure in a position removed from the drink spout.” PO Resp. 13–14; PO Sur-Reply 4. Although Trove contends that CamelBak’s construction “impermissibly rewrites” the claim language, Trove nonetheless “does not disagree that it encompasses ‘hold or keep the Indeed, the claim language itself already contemplates just such a construction by expressly reciting that the closure retention mechanism “selectively retain[s] the closure in a stowed position relative to the handle when the closure is selectively removed from the drink spout.” Ex. 1001, 18:63–66 (emphasis added). As such, we determine that further construction of this limitation is not necessary to resolve the present dispute.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Trove proposes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had— an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or equivalent coursework, and a year or more of experience in designing, prototyping, and/or manufacturing fluid containers or similar products . . . [and that] [m]ore work experience may substitute for a lower level of education, and vice versa. Pet. 17–18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 25–30). 2 US 9,272,822 B2, issued Mar. 1, 2016 (Ex. 1004, “Samartgis”). 3 EP 2 177 447 A1, published Apr. 21, 2010 (Ex. 1011, “Gorskey”). 4 US 2006/0006578 A1, published Jan. 12, 2006 (Ex. 1012, “Johnson”). 5 US 7,753,240 B2, issued July 13, 2010 (Ex. 1005, “Leoncavallo”). 6 US D586,184 S, issued Feb. 10, 2009 (Ex. 1006, “Miller”). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering or the equivalent coursework and approximately one year of experience with liquid-containing devices, with more work experience substituting for less education and vice versa. See PO Resp. 7 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 61–68). Because CamelBak simply paraphrases Trove’s slightly more detailed definition of the level of skill in the art, we adopt Trove’s definition, as it appears reasonable and consistent with the asserted prior art and the ’252 patent.” slip op. at 6

  Patent outcomesUS 8,905,252 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 8,905,252
• Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01339 · APJ Brent M Dougal · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 4–9, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner failed to establish a reason to combine Peev and Spitballs.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedOther

    “We agree that the three definitions are similar. The parties do not advocate for any particular definition. We also determine that no distinction between the definitions is material to this Decision. As such, we do not repeat all three definitions and accept Patent Owner’s definition as most closely fitting the legal requirements: 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 bachelor’s in materials science, chemistry, or equivalent (e.g., chemical engineering), or has at least one year experience working with materials for use in consumer products equivalent work experience may substitute for educational experience, and vice versa” slip op. at 7

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

    “Neither Petitioner or Patent Owner advocate for the construction of any particular claim term. Pet. 20–21; see generally PO Resp. We determine that no terms require express construction. 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 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “conducting this kind of basic muzzle energy analysis—a conventional, even industry standard technique at the time—would not have concluded that the polymer balls that Spitballs teaches are a safer form of ammunition simply because they are softer than lightweight airsoft rounds,” because the record supports it. Ex. 2015 ¶ 59. slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “that softer ammunition was a possible solution and that Vat19 shows Spitballs exploding on contact with a person without harm. Reply 28–30 (citing Paper 12, 16–17; PO Resp. 63). However, we agree with Patent Owner, that Kim and Vat19 do not disclose all of the limitations of the claims. PO Resp. 61–62; PO Sur-reply 26; Ex. 1004, 302:7–22; Ex. 1022, 8, 9; Ex. 1024; Ex. 2007, 100 (ALJ concluding “there is no disclosure that [Kim’s] gel material is a SAP”); Ex. 2015 ¶¶ 236–239. Petitioner makes no assertions to the contrary. See Pet. 57–60; Reply 28–30. As discussed above, the full record does not support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Peev and Spitballs for the reasons asserted by Petitioner. Petitioner’s insufficient evidence of simultaneous invention does not overcome that deficiency.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,640,683 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,640,683
• Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2023-01348 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 2, 3, 5–15, 17, and 19–21 not shown unpatentable over Spitballs and Peev because the evidence did not establish an obvious reason to use the SAP ammunition in Peev’s airsoft gun.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “After the Petition was filed, Patent Owner disclaimed independent claim 1 and dependent claim 4 of the ’282 patent. Prelim. Resp. 26; Ex. 2013. Accordingly, we need not reach Petitioner’s challenges to claims 1 and 4. E.g., 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e). Thus, the remaining challenged claims are claims 2, 3, 5–15, 17, and 19–21.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “that were proposed in the ITC proceeding as “similar” and noting the ITC ALJ’s determination that “all of the proposals are appropriate,” Petitioner does not argue for the application of any particular level of skill in the art in this proceeding. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1015, 8). We too find the definitions advanced in the ITC proceeding similar. Indeed, any differences between the definitions do not rise to a level that would affect our analysis of whether the Petition and associated evidence are sufficiently persuasive for purposes of institution. In our view, the foregoing level of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Patent Owner in the ITC proceeding best fits the legal requirements. Accordingly, we adopt and apply that level of ordinary skill in the art in our analysis of the merits.” slip op. at 10

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

    “The parties’ arguments and evidence do not raise any issues that necessitate an express claim construction in order to determine whether Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we need not and do not expressly construe any claim language. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “success in an airsoft gun such as Peev, including rubber, cork, foam, and soft plastics, such as SAPs.” Ex. 1016 ¶ 78; Pet. 37. For multiple reasons, this testimony fails to support Petitioner’s suggestion that using SAP ammunition in Peev’s airsoft gun was among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. For example, because Mr. Delman does not support this testimony with objective supporting evidence, it is not entitled to persuasive weight in Petitioner’s favor. Ex. 1016 ¶ 78; 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”). Additionally, even if Mr. Delman substantiated his view that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have considered” SAPs as airsoft ammunition, that would not persuade us that SAPs were identified, predictable solutions for airsoft ammunition.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 8,371,282 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,371,282
• Prime Time Toys LLC / Prime Time Toys Ltd. et al. v. Spin Master, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,596,255
• BTL Industries, Inc. v. Inmode Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,961,511
• Ford Motor Company / General Motors LLC et al. v. Neo Wireless LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00763 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 11 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Park and IEEE 802.16-2004 because the combination did not teach a claimed mobile device.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “In summary, the extrinsic record shows that, in the context of wireless network communications using the IEEE 802.16 standard, a “mobile device” is distinct from and excludes a device that is “fixed” or “portable,” where a “mobile” device is described as a device that is mobile during wireless network communications, and a “fixed” or “portable” device is described as a device that is fixed or slowly moving during wireless network communications. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 11; Ex. 1025, 24, 34, 38, 45; Ex. 2025, 71. This understanding of a “mobile device” from the extrinsic record is consistent with the language of claim 7 which recites a mobile device configured for wireless network communications (e.g., receiving an identifier and a signal from a base station), and consistent with the ’450 Patent disclosure that repeatedly and consistently utilizes the term “mobile device.” Accordingly, based on the record, we construe “mobile device” as a device that is mobile during wireless network communications, and is not fixed or slowly moving during wireless network communications.” slip op. at 19

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

    “We do not agree with Petitioner’s arguments because, as explained above in Section III.B., we construe “mobile device” as a device that is mobile during wireless network communications, and is not fixed or slowly moving during wireless network communications. Thus, after having considered both parties’ arguments and the cited supporting evidence, we are not persuaded that the combination of Park and IEEE 802.16-2004, including the application of Park to WiBro’s teaching of stationary or slowly moving devices communicating using band AMC, teaches or suggests a “mobile device,” as properly construed, that is configured to perform the limitations recited in the body of claim 7.” slip op. at 36

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Other PTAB motions (exclude, strike, seal, additional discovery, rehearing)Granted

    “Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a), a party may file a motion to submit supplemental information if the following requirements are met: (1) a request for authorization to file such motion must be made within one month of the date the trial was instituted; and (2) the supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which trial has been instituted. In addition to these requirements, the Board considers the motion in light of its mandate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), i.e., “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”” slip op. at 41

  Patent outcomesUS 10,447,450 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,447,450
• Ford Motor Company / General Motors LLC et al. v. Neo Wireless LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 3, 2025 · IPR2023-00962 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 7 and 11 were not shown unpatentable as obvious over Park and IEEE 802.16-2004 because the combination did not teach a mobile device as construed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Director reviewDirector review, grantedGranted

    “Ford requested Director Review of the Institution Denial Decision, which was granted. Papers 18, 19. On March 22, 2024, the Director issued a Decision Vacating the Ford Institution Denial Decision as an improper extension of the “significant relationship,” as set forth in General Plastic and Valve, and remanding to the Board to issue a decision on institution that addresses the merits of the Petition. Paper 28 (“Director’s Decision”). In addition, the Director sua sponte granted Director Review of the GM and Nissan Institution Denial Decision and, on March 22, 2024, vacated and remanded the GM and Nissan Institution Denial Decision for the same reasons as those set forth in the Director’s Decision. GM and Nissan IPR, Papers 12, 16.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticInstitution denied

    “On November 9, 2023, we denied institution under § 314(a), after considering the factors set forth in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential only as to Section II.B.4.i) (“General Plastic”), and expanded upon in Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential) (“Valve”). Paper 17 (“Ford Institution Denial Decision”). General Motors LLC and Nissan North America Inc. (“GM and Nissan”) filed a petition requesting inter partes review of claims 7 and 11 of the ’450 Patent and a motion for joinder with this proceeding. IPR2023- 00962 (“GM and Nissan IPR”), Papers 3, 4. On December 6, 2023, we denied institution under § 314(a) based on the petition filed in the GM and Nissan IPR after consideration of the factors set forth in General Plastic and Valve and denied the Motion for Joinder as moot on the basis of the Ford Institution Denial Decision. See GM and Nissan IPR, Paper 11 (“GM and Nissan Institution Denial Decision”).” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted

    “Subsequently, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted trial on September 11, 2024, as to all of the challenged claims and all of the grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 30 (“Institution Decision,” “Dec. on Inst.”). We also instituted trial and granted the Motion for Joinder in IPR2023- 00962. See GM and Nissan IPR, Paper 18.” slip op. at 3

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Joinder §315(c) / SAS all-or-nothingJoinder, grantedGranted

    “Subsequently, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, we instituted trial on September 11, 2024, as to all of the challenged claims and all of the grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 30 (“Institution Decision,” “Dec. on Inst.”). We also instituted trial and granted the Motion for Joinder in IPR2023- 00962. See GM and Nissan IPR, Paper 18.” slip op. at 3

  Patent outcomesUS 10,447,450 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,447,450
• American Honda Motor Co. Inc. / General Motors LLC et al. v. Neo Wireless LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 1, 2024 · IPR2023-00963 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not disclose the construed starting time-frequency coordinate, which excludes separate time and frequency coordinates.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner

    “After reviewing the parties’ respective positions and the intrinsic evidence cited by the parties, we agree with Patent Owner that the Board’s decision denying institution in IPR2021-01486, finding that “a starting timefrequency coordinate” is not disclosed by separate starting time and frequency coordinates, constitutes a disclaimer which is binding on these proceedings. See Ex. 1014, 27; Aylus, 856 F.3d at 1361; Cupp Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., 53 F.4th 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2022); see also Ex. 1012, 12–13 (Patent Owner’s arguments that a time coordinate and a frequency coordinate is not the same as “a starting time-frequency coordinate.”). As such, we find that the ordinary and customary meaning of “a starting time frequency coordinate” excludes separate time and frequency coordinates. We further agree with Patent Owner that the ’450 Patent Specification is consistent with this construction because it discloses segments of time-frequency resource (e.g., V1, V2, . . . Vm) each having a starting time-frequency coordinate (e.g., index VZ1=0, Vz2=1, VZ3=9 . . . Vm). See Ex. 1001, 6:3–14, 7:7–27, Fig. 6; PO Resp. 16–17. Finally, we agree that the recitations of dependent claims 2 and 3 are not inconsistent with “a starting time frequency coordinate” that does not encompass separate time and frequency coordinates. See PO Resp. 19–21.” slip op. at 19

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

    “coordinates. See Pet. 44–47. Although Vijayan089 discloses that the assigned segment may be specified by two parameters––the start of the segment and the length of the segment, Vijayan089 further discloses the start of the segment parameter may be given by the starting subband and symbol period. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 74. Petitioner does not direct us to any disclosure in Vijayan089 describing this start of the segment parameter in any additional detail or describing this parameter in terms other than a starting symbol period (i.e., time coordinate) and subband (i.e., frequency coordinate). See Pet. 44–47. Indeed, Petitioner asserts that PLC2 or “Segment 734 includes a starting time-frequency coordinate of: Symbol Period =4, Subband Group =2.” Pet. 47; see Pet. 46 (Petitioner’s annotated Figure 7B of Vijayan089); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87, 150. We further agree that Dr. Wilson’s deposition testimony is consistent with Vijayan089’s description of the start of the segment in terms a starting symbol period (i.e., time coordinate) and subband (i.e., frequency coordinate). See Ex. 2007, 149:6–12, 150:10–22, 152:22–153:5. As explained above in Section II.B., we find that separate time and frequency coordinates have been disclaimed from the ordinary and customary meaning of “a starting time-frequency coordinate.” Accordingly, Vijayan089’s disclosure of the start of the segment parameter given by the symbol period (i.e., time coordinate) and starting subband (i.e., frequency coordinate) does not disclose the claimed “a starting time-frequency coordinate” in accordance with its correct construction.” slip op. at 34

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that these Reply arguments modifying Vijayan089 in view of Park are untimely. Contrary to Petitioner’s suggestion, Patent Owner does not explicitly propose construing “a starting time-frequency coordinate,” as limited to a “single index.” See PO Resp. 11–21; PO Sur-reply 1–5. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in a response or to address issues discussed in the institution decision. (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 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” the petition. Id. at 74. A petitioner may not submit new arguments or evidence in a reply that it could have presented earlier, for example, to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability. See id. at 73. “[A] reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered.” Id.; see also Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 75 F.4th 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“We have held that a petitioner may not in reply rely on new prior art to teach a claim limitation.”). Accordingly, we decline to consider Petitioner’s belated Reply arguments that it would have been obvious to modify Vijayan089 to use an index.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 10,447,450 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,447,450

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.