- PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–9 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Whitmarsh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claims 1–9 on the grounds asserted in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“permission module,” as used in claim 1, has “a well understood structural meaning in the computer technology field.” 792 F.3d at 1350. Rather, the limitation in question is “drafted in the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation, and merely replaces the term ‘means’ with ‘nonce’ word ‘module,’ thereby connoting a generic ‘black box’ for performing the recited computer-implemented functions.” Id. And, while claim 1 recites the “outputs” of the permission module (i.e., a determination regarding the permissions of an aerial system), “the claim does not describe how the [permission module] interacts with other components in the [discrimination system] in a way that might inform the structural character of the limitation- in-question or otherwise impart structure to the [permission module] as recited in the claim.” Id. at 1351. We also reviewed the Specification, and we agree with Petitioner that the Specification identifies the following structure as corresponding to the claimed permission module: “storage on-board the disruption module 105, storage on-board the identification receiver 102, a remote computing system connected to the disruption module…, or [] any other suitable computing system.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1001, 9:64–10:4. slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“from nearby UAVs wireless communications that include information or signatures unique to the UAVs, such as a MAC [media access control] address of the UAV, that is used to identify the transmitting UAV.” Pet. 16– 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20, 27; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 8, 10, 13, 15–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117–118). For example, Petitioner cites Whitmarsh’s teachings that “[a]ll drones have a unique identifier, such as a media access control (MAC) address, that can be determined or read by the DDS [drone defense system] and can be used to identify the drone.” Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 13). Based on these teachings, Petitioner submits that the signal received from the UAVs includes an aerial system identifier signal unique to the aerial system. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 27; Ex. 1006 ¶ 13).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claim 21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood it is obvious over Beard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 21, the sole challenged claim. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claim 21 on the grounds asserted in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s proposed formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2016/0253907 A1, published Sept. 1, 2016 (Ex. 1010). 4 PCT Pub. No. WO 2016/078093 A1, published May 26, 2016 (Ex. 1011). 5 PCT Pub. No. WO 2016/154949 A1, published Oct. 6, 2016 (Ex. 1012). 6 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2016/0127890 A1, published May 5, 2016 (Ex. 1013). 7 PCT Pub. No. WO 2015/043123 A1, published Apr. 2, 2015 (Ex. 1014). purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is (1) consistent with the ’959 Patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Chowdhary. B.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“But before describing the embodiments cited by Patent Owner, the Specification plainly states: “Any terms not expressly defined herein have their conventional meaning as commonly understood by those having skill in the relevant art(s).” Ex. 1001, 4:64–67. Thus, the Specification itself cautions against construing the claim terms such as “secure identifier” as limited to the scope of the disclosed embodiments. Here, Patent Owner has not cited any express definition of “secure identifier,” or identified any explicit disclaimer of claim scope that might justify narrowing the scope of this claim term to specific embodiments disclosed in the Specification. In the absence of such a definition or disclaimer, we are not persuaded that the scope of the claim term “secure identifier” should be limited to specific aspects of the preferred embodiments cited by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 7–14. On this record, and at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction and preliminarily construe “secure identifier” as “a credential that can be used to securely verify the identity of a device, such as an airborne object or ground-based transmitter.”8” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“’071 Application lack adequate written description support for the “secure identifier” claim limitation. For a patent claim to be entitled to the priority date of an earlier-filed application, the earlier application must provide complete written description support for the claim as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). L.A. Biomedical Rsch. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“L.A. Biomed”). To satisfy this requirement, the written description must “reasonably convey” to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession on the claimed priority date of each limitation of the later-claimed subject matter. L.A. Biomed, 849 F.3d at 1057. It is not enough that an earlier application’s disclosure “renders the later-claimed invention obvious;” as “the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” L.A. Biomed, 849 F.3d at 1057. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application lack adequate written description support for the “secure identifier” limitation of claim 21. We have preliminarily construed “secure identifier” as “a credential that can be used to securely verify the identity of a device, such as an airborne object or ground-based transmitter.” See supra § II.B. As discussed above, the Specification of the ’959 Patent does not use the term “secure identifier,” but the Specification contains extensive discussion of the need for an identification credential that is secure (e.g., difficult for a bad actor to clone or impersonate). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:56– 65 (discussing the need for a system that is difficult to “clone”), 10:20–49 (discussing the need “trust” between a drone and ground-based equipment, and the need for a way to verifying the drone’s credentials), 11:5–12:62 (disclosing the use of encryption and a rotating SSID to generate a secure identifier for a drone). None of the portions of the Specification cited above is present in the ’153 Provisional or the ’071 Application. See generally Ex. 1006, 1007. The ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application discuss the need for identifiers for low-altitude aircraft (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1007, 9), but there is no discussion of any need for an identification credential to be secure or resistant to cloning or impersonation. See generally Ex. 1006, 1007. The ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application do not disclose the use of encryption, SSIDs (much less rotating SSIDs), or any other technologies for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of an identification credential. See generally id. Based on our review of the ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application, we preliminarily conclude that neither of these applications would have reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor then had possession of the concept of the “secure identifier” that was later claimed in the ’959 Patent.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,959 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00562 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all three § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service.” Prelim. Resp. 1–6. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 25–26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the prior proceedings, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2001, 26; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11. That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Ex. 2001, 26. Accordingly, although the referenced portion of the District Court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 5. That is, we are unpersuaded that the District Court construed that “‘[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” or that “hybrid device” includes “an RDC that ‘enable[es] one or more of an application, a function, and a service’ when it forwards such a message to the application, function, or service.” Id. (emphasis omitted, alteration in original). Thus, as in the prior proceedings, we determine that “enabl[ing] one or more of an application a function, and a service” does not require receiving information from a PDK in exchange for an access key or forwarding a message to the application, function, or service.” Id.; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. 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))). Petitioner proposes claim construction for “Personal Digital Key (PDK).” Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner does not take issue with Petitioner’s proposed construction for “PDK” but instead requests that we “follow the District Court’s construction” for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service,” with respect to claim 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Because the parties do not take issue with each other’s proposed claim constructions, there is no term of the challenged claims that is in controversy, and thus, we determine that no term requires explicit construction. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. However, although it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve the disputed issues before us, we note that Patent Owner provides arguments with respect to “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service” recited in claims 1 and 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. We addressed similar arguments with respect to these terms in previous proceedings with related patents (see IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11), and we similarly address Patent Owner’s contention in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to integrate an RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device for communication with external PDKs based, in part on the teachings of Giobbi ’139.” Pet. 27. In particular, Petitioner contends that Giobbi ’139 “expressly teaches integrating an RDC into the same type of hybrid device disclosed in Giobbi ’157, a cell phone,” wherein “a ‘Personal Digital Key Digital Content Security System (PDK-DCSS) is used to protect computers from unauthorized use and protect the digital content stored on computers from being wrongfully accessed, copied, and/or distributed.’” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract). According to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’139 teaches that RDCs should be incorporated into hybrid devices like cell phones because these devices ‘commonly included’ data storage,” wherein “Giobbi ’139 identified such a configuration as an ‘enhancement.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 87–88). Further, according to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’157 teaches that it is advantageous to incorporate PDKs into ‘commonly carried items,’ like phone, since it would eliminate the need for a user to carry a separate PDK device and would reduce the risk of loss.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 35; Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). In addition, Petitioner contends that “the Dua patent’s RFID system configuration also provides motivation to integrate and RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device.” Id. In particular, according to Petitioner, “Dua teaches a hybrid device—e.g., a cell phone—which establishes wireless connections with other devices to enable functions and exchange data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–65).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,049,188 - PTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00673 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–7 and all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would show at least one claim unpatentable over Shin and Aoyama.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in demonstrating at least one of claims 1–7 of the ’675 patent is unpatentable. We begin our analysis with the principles of law that generally apply to an asserted ground based on obviousness, we then assess the level of skill in the art, next we provide brief overviews of Shin and Aoyama, and then we address the parties’ contentions with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 7.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17. “The importance of resolving the level of ordinary skill in the art lies in the necessity of maintaining objectivity in the obviousness inquiry.” Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 718 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The “person having ordinary skill in the art” is a hypothetical construct, from whose vantage point obviousness is assessed. In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Env’t Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or 4 At this stage in the proceeding, SoundClear does not present arguments or evidence of secondary considerations. See Prelim. Resp. more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Stern, Amazon argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a similar field, and approximately two years of industry or academic experience in a field related to controlling the audio output of electronic devices. Work experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–32). In the Preliminary Response, SoundClear does not address Amazon’s assessment of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding, we adopt Amazon’s uncontested assessment of the level of skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’675 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Stern.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support determining that a person of ordinary skill in the would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Shin and Aoyama. As one example, Amazon contends that the proposed combination is merely the addition of one known element (i.e., “Aoyama’s natural language processing and information retrieval”) to another known element (i.e., “Shin’s voice processing and response device”) to obtain predictable results (i.e., “identifying a user’s intent and providing information responsive to such intent”). Pet. 19–20 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1002 ¶ 83). As another example, Amazon contends the proposed combination also represents the addition of one known element (i.e., “Aoyama’s word replacement” feature) to another known element (i.e., “Shin’s distance-based content abbreviation/simplification”) to obtain predictable results (i.e., “using word replacement to simply content for distant users”). Id. at 25–26 (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 417; Ex. 1002 ¶ 100). Amazon also presents sufficient arguments and evidence for purposes of institution that would support determining there is a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination. Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 84), 27–28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 102; Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 97, 98 Fig. 7). To the extent SoundClear argues that Amazon is required to identify a problem a person of ordinary skill in the art would have sought to solve when combining the teachings of Shin and Aoyama, we do not agree. See Prelim. Resp. 31–32. This line of argument runs contrary to the principles of law articulated in KSR. In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “an expansive and flexible approach” to an obviousness evaluation. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415; see also Jazz Pharm., Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, 895 F.3d 1347, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“KSR did not impose a rigid requirement to identify . . . a problem to be solved in the art . . . .”). The Supreme Court stated that, “[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents,” amongst other things, “to determine whether there was apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Moreover, the Supreme Court explained that, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 420.” slip op. at 26
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Amazon’s characterizations of Shin, Aoyama, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Stern’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Shin and Aoyama. At this stage of the proceeding, SoundClear argues that Shin does not teach limitations 1[b]—“a voice classifying unit configured 1[b][i] to calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor 1[b][ii] to classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance.” See Prelim. Resp. 19–22. a. Limitations 1[b]—“a voice classifying unit configured to 1[b][i] calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor to 1[b][ii] classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance” In the Preliminary Response, SoundClear contends that Shin fails to teach voice classification because “Shin is incapable of distinguishing [between] multiple voices.” Prelim. Resp. 21. More specifically, SoundClear argues that Shin cannot teach classifying a voice into a first voice or second voice because “Shin never refers to a ‘first user’ or ‘second user’ or ‘multiple users.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 generally); see also id. at 26– 27 (arguing that Amazon misstates the record because Shin never discloses a “first voice” nor a “second voice”). Instead, SoundClear asserts that Shin only contemplates a single user (i.e., user 10) when calculating the distance between the user and an electronic device (e.g., Shin’s electronic device 100). Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 37, 38). Based on the preliminary record, Amazon presents sufficient evidence that would support a finding that Shin teaches “a voice classifying unit configured to calculate a distance between the user and the output-content control device by a proximity sensor to classify the voice into either a first voice or a second voice based on the calculated distance.” Pet. 10–14. Shin discloses that “processor 120 may determine an output scheme of corresponding content based on a distance between a user and the electronic device 101.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 53. Shin’s processor 120 accomplishes this distance calculation by using distance detection module 180, which may include various sensors, such as a proximity sensor. Id. ¶ 66; see also id. ¶ 153 (disclosing an embodiment where electronic device 901 includes sensor module 940, which, in turn, includes proximity sensor 940G). Shin’s Table 3 illustrates how the distance between the user and electronic device 101 determines the output scheme. Id. ¶ 86, Table 3. For instance, Shin’s Table 3 illustrates classifying the user’s voice input as a “first voice” when the distance between the user and electronic device 101 is between 1 to 2 meters, and classifying the user’s voice input as a “second voice” when the distance between the user and electronic device 101 is less than 1 meter. Id. ¶¶ 86, 87, Table 3.” slip op. at 23
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,244,675 - Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,849 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00497 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hankins alone or in the stated combinations with Munger and Treuhaft.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the plain language alone, there are “end-to-end tunnels” which “connect[] the first device and the second device” of the network system. In addition, “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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. As already noted, the parties appear to agree that the specification does not define explicitly an “end-to-end tunnel.” In describing Figure 33 of the ’505 patent, reproduced above in Section I.D.2, the specification describes Figure 33 as illustrating “GVN Tunnel from LAN to EDP to SRV_AP to EPD to LAN. This variation illustrates an end-to-end GVN tunnel(s) between edges of two LANs via one SRV_AP.” Ex. 1001, 33:8–11 (emphasis added). The specification further describes Figure 33 as showing one tunnel between EPD-1 and AP-1. This is joined to a second tunnel between AP-1 and EPD-2. There are three neutral hops within the Third Layer of the GVN represented by NH1, NH2, and NH3 as compared to the 13 hops on the base Internet between EH3 and EH15. Id. at 33:15–19. This disclosure shows the end-to-end GVN tunnel has two hops, one between EPD-1 and AP-1, and one from AP-1 to EPD-2. The intermediate connection at AP-1 teaches the tunnel may be interrupted, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that Figure 33 of the ’505 patent supports a construction requiring the tunnel to be “uninterrupted.” See PO Resp. 9–10; see also Section II.D.2 below (addressing Patent Owner’s “uninterrupted” argument).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s assertion that an “intermediate tunnel” is not an “endto-end tunnel. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 20–21 (arguing Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Hankins teaches only “intermediate tunnels”). Given our claim construction supra, we find Hankins’s tunnels are “end-to-end tunnels” even if they are made of separate segments. Based on our final construction, and for the reasons discussed in Section II above, on this complete record we find that Petitioner has shown that Hankins teaches or suggests limitation 1.3. For completeness, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence explaining how Hankins alone or in combination with Munger teaches the remaining limitations of claim 1, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. See Pet. 30–32, 38–44. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,630,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,630,505 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00561 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Wainner and Bocci; the Board did not reach the Kamite and Bocci ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’775 patent would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking or a related field,” wherein “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See PO Resp. 18. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’775 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument that a link is a physical connection (PO Resp. 19; PO Sur-reply 2) unavailing. In particular, claims 1 and 6 do not recite any requirement that a “link” is “physical.” Further, as Petitioner points out, there is no support in the ’775 patent for “defining ‘link’ as only a physical connection,” and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. Pet. Reply 5. Although we agree with Patent Owner that a link can connect the interfaces of routers wherein routers are “physical devices” (PO Sur-reply 2), claims 1 and 6 do not require that the link physically connects the routers. That is, the claims merely require a pseudo-wire to comprise a link set up between routers to connect the routers. We agree with Petitioner that pseudo-wires comprising the connection links “can connect to any interface, ‘whether it is a physical, logical, or virtual interface.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3; Ex. 1042 ¶ 7). In fact, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[a] link, . . . , is not limited to a physical connection.” See Tr. 30:6–7.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that a pseudo-wire (“a type of emulated connection”) cannot be the same as a link (“a type of physical connection between router interface”). PO Resp. 20. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any requirement that a link be a physical connection, and thus, does not require that a link differs from the emulated connection of a pseudo-wire. As discussed above, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that a link is not limited to a physical connection. See Tr. 30:6–7. The ’775 patent itself provides no definition for “pseudo-wire” to support Patent’s Owner’s construction, and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. As Petitioner points out, the ’775 patent instead supports a construction of “pseudo-wire” as comprising multiple links, wherein “[t]he first and second links constitute a first pseudo-wire pw1” and the second “pseudo-wire ps2 consists of the first link L1 and a second link L3.” Pet. Reply 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 6:29–43). We find availing Petitioner’s argument that, even if links were “physical connections” as Patent Owner asserts, “then the pseudo-wire consists of . . . two physical connections,” no different from a link, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion. Id. (citing Ex. 1042 ¶ 10). Although Patent Owner argues that the POSITA has always considered a pseudo-wire as a point-to-point link set up between input and output routers (PO Resp. 5–6), claims 1 and 6 do not recite that a pseudo-wire comprises a point-to-point link set up, and there is no support in the ’775 patent for specifically defining “pseudo-wire” as and limiting the term to a point-to-point link set up.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bhattacharjee testified in support of Petitioner’s position that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the ordinary meaning of ‘link,’ . . . includes both physical and virtual connections, particularly in the context of pseudo-wires.” Ex. 1042 ¶ 7. We find availing Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony, which is supported by evidence. See id. (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3 (disclosing that pseudo-wires encapsulate “data arriving at the PE-bound port (logical or physical)”), 4 (disclosing that the attachment circuit over which the pseudo-wire is established can be a “physical or virtual circuit”)). For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that a “link” is not required to be a physical connection. Instead, we determine that a “link” connects the interfaces of first and second routers, whether they are physical, logical, or virtual interfaces.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,130,775 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,130,775 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546
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.