• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00710 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9, 13, and 16–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Schneier and over Schneier with Okita; claim 8 was not shown unpatentable under either ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not contradicted and is consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’294 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner indicates that “[t]his Petition establishes that the prior art meets each of the claim limitations under any reasonable construction. Thus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 86). In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that no constructions are necessary “because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” PO Resp. 4–5. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to any particular claim term and because the claims, as a whole, are reasonably clear on their face, no specific claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8

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

    “rather than 10 credits, does not have a temporal component. Ex. 1008, 63:31–34. Rather, it describes an option for the user or player to obtain a discount at a particular point in time if the player is willing to purchase 20 rather than 10 credits. Id. Petitioner’s citations to this embodiment do not 9. Pet. 31; Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing Ex. 1008, 63:31–34). In this embodiment the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are constant, and the user is simply choosing between two existing options at a particular time to potentially take advantage of a $0.20 discount on credits. Comparatively, the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are different, but they are not “variable over time,” as required by claim 9. Ex. 1001, 47:38–40.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “and reliance on Figure 19 do not in any way explain how updating game costs by meter 502 with a new Cost_Table is relevant to a credit multiplier or even a multiplier being varied over time. Ex. 1003 ¶ 155. Considering this evidence, we determine that Petitioner and Mr. Crevelt’s reliance mainly on snippets from Schneier’s “Updating Cost Information protocol” embodiment does not sufficiently explain why or how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood updating game cost to encompass varying a multiplier of credits over time. We also note that during his deposition, Mr. Crevelt was given opportunity to clarify his testimony as to Figure 19 and explain the cost updating embodiment in Schneier, and mostly demurred. See Ex. 2004:158:4–182:6. Explaining his reliance on Figure 19, Mr. Crevelt stated: A: And whatever latest price from that updated cost information coming from the central site is -- is variable, it’s variable as time proceed[s]. It’s a – it’s a, much of a complicated section, and -- but the information is in the Schneier patent and shows that it could have -- it should change over time. Id. at 158:23–159:5. Mr. Crevelt further stated that: A: . . . for a metered play where you’re buying so much time or so many credits or so many games on a specific game and when it runs out, then have you to buy more, and that variable can change over time. relates Schneier’s “updated cost,” with the claimed “multiplier” and “variable,” and does not adequately explain how they are equivalent or interconnected. See, e.g., id. at 160:16–23 (Mr. Crevelt testifying that “we can go from the description of figure 19, which starts at basically the top of column 56 in the Schneier patent, and . . . describes this process in detail of how the information is transferred from one place to the other and updated.”). Mr. Crevelt concludes that Schneier’s description is “complicated,” and from Figure 19 asserts the cost somehow includes a credit multiplier that “could” or “should” change over time. Id. at 158:23– 159:5. Overall, this testimony fails to sufficiently explain or point to persuasive evidence in Schneier as to how or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the Figure 19 cost updating embodiment discloses a time-variable multiplier as required in claim 8.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,825,294 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,825,294
• Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Milestone Entertainment, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00709 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14–18, 21–23, 25, 27, and 29 are unpatentable as obvious over Schneier and over Schneier with Okita; claim 9 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner states it “does not dispute Petitioners’ proposed level of skill, and under any level of skill a POSITA would not understand the asserted Grounds to raise any unpatentability issue.” PO Resp. 4. Patent Owner states further that “this [Patent Owner Response] and supporting declarations apply Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” Id. On this record, Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art is not contradicted and is consistent with the technology and descriptions in the ’635 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For purposes of this Decision, we rely on Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner indicated in the Petition that “[t]his Petition establishes that the prior art meets each of the claim limitations under any reasonable construction.[] Thus, no express construction is required.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85). In its Response, Patent Owner indicates that no constructions are necessary “because under any reasonable construction of the claim terms, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claimed features.” PO Resp. 4–5. Because there is no dispute between the parties as to any particular claim term and because the claims, as a whole, are reasonably clear on their face, no specific claim construction is necessary in this proceeding.” slip op. at 8

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also note that during his deposition, Mr. Crevelt was given opportunity to clarify his testimony as to Figure 19 and explain the cost updating embodiment in Schneier, and mostly demurred. See Ex. 2004, 158:4–182:6. Explaining his reliance on Figure 19, Mr. Crevelt stated: A: And whatever latest price from that updated cost information coming from the central site is -- is variable, it’s variable as time proceed[s]. It’s a – it’s a, much of a complicated section, and -- but the information is in the Schneier patent and shows that it could have -- it should change over time. Id. at 158:23–159:5. Mr. Crevelt further stated that: A: . . . for a metered play where you’re buying so much time or so many credits or so many games on a specific game and when it runs out, then have you to buy more, and that variable can change over time. Id. at 161:2–6. These explanations are unpersuasive because the testimony relates Schneier’s “updated cost,” with the claimed “multiplier” and “variable,” and does not adequately explain how they are equivalent or interconnected. See, e.g., id. at 160:16–23 (Mr. Crevelt testifying that “we can go from the description of figure 19, which starts at basically the top of column 56 in the Schneier patent, and . . . describes this process in detail of how the information is transferred from one place to the other and updated.”). Mr. Crevelt concludes that Schneier’s description is “complicated,” and from Figure 19 asserts the cost somehow includes a credit multiplier that “could” or “should” change over time. Id. at 158:23– 159:5. Overall, this testimony fails to sufficiently explain or point to in the art would have understood that the Figure 19 cost updating embodiment discloses a time-variable multiplier as required in claim 9.” slip op. at 21

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

    “Discount Credit Pricing Structure The $0.20 discount described by Schneier for purchasing 20 credits, rather than 10 credits, does not have a temporal component. Ex. 1008, 63:31–34. Rather, it describes an option for the user or player to obtain a discount at a particular point in time if the player is willing to purchase 20 rather than 10 credits. Id. Petitioner’s citations to this embodiment do not address the idea of a time component, i.e., “over time,” as required by claim 9. Pet. 31; Pet. Reply 3–7 (citing Ex. 1008, 63:31–34). In this embodiment the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are constant, and the user is simply choosing between two existing options at a particular time to potentially take advantage of a $0.20 discount on credits. Comparatively, the $0.30 and $0.50 multipliers are different, but they are not “variable over time,” as required by claim 9. Ex. 1001, 47:38–40.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,650,635 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,650,635
• Axon Enterprise, Inc. / Dedrone Holdings, Inc. v. Airspace Defense, Inc.Other
  PTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Original claims 1–9 were canceled; the non-contingent motion to add substitute claims 10–18 was denied for lack of written-description support, and claim 18 was also indefinite.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • 112 supportMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “that either the ’303 application or the ’838 provisional contain adequate written description support for the disputed feature of limitation [10.d]. Though the disclosures cited by Patent Owner indicate that a secondary identifier can be used to aid in verification of a UAV, these disclosures also make clear that both first and second identifiers are transmitted by and received from the UAV. See, e.g., Ex. 2002, 4:15–17, 30:24–31:6; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 14, 66. Patent Owner’s reliance on disclosure characterized as transmitting an identifier from a remote computing system “through the UAV” (Reply 2) is not persuasive. The cited disclosures from the ’303 application and ’838 provisional generally disclose that the identifiers transmitted by a UAV can be “generated remotely,” such as by a “remote computing system.” Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45. But Patent Owner has not identified disclosure indicating that a remote computing system may transmit an identifier to the identification receiver. In the ’303 application and ’838 provisional, only the UAV (which is part of the discrimination system, and thus not “remote”) actually transmits identifiers to the identification receiver. Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that an “aerial system identifier can be generated on-board the aerial system” or “generated remotely . . . at a remote computing system.” Mot. 7 (citing Ex. 2002, 14:23–15:2; Ex. 2003 ¶ 45). But even if a UAV’s identifier was at some time in the past generated by a remote computing system, the subsequent transmission of that identifier from the UAV to the identification receiver would not satisfy the plain language of limitation [10.d]. The claim language “receive … a second identifier from a computing system that is remote to the discrimination system” requires the receipt of a transmission of the second identifier from a remote computing system. This claim language limits the source of the received transmission (i.e., where the particular transmission is “receive[d] … from”). Thus, the relevant issue is from where was the recited second identifier received. The relevant is not where the second identifier was originally generated.” slip op. at 12

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Definiteness (Nautilus)DefiniteIndefiniteMixed

    “We determine that the disputed language in limitation [10.d] is not indefinite. There is no recitation in proposed substitute claim 10 that the second identifier is transmitted solely from the identifier transmission system. Thus, the alleged irreconcilable contradiction cited by Petitioner is not recited in the claims. Petitioner’s position appears to rest on the fact that the ’303 application and ’838 provisional do not disclose receiving the second identifier from a remote computing system. See Sur-reply 6 (“To manufacture written description support, [Patent Owner] argues the claim encompasses identifiers routed ‘through the UAV.’”). Though we agree that limitation [10.d] lacks adequate written description support, this defect does not render the claim indefinite because the scope of limitation [10.d] is otherwise reasonably certain based on its plain language. See supra § III.C.4.” slip op. at 18

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference not prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner

    “In contrast, the ’393 provisional never discloses that the described drone defense system may use the identity of a detected drone to develop a particular countermeasure. The disclosed RTSS certainly uses identity information to determine whether a drone is a threat. And if a threat is identified, the RTSS immediately starts “a series of processes … to determine what rule of engagement will be applied on the intruding drone.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 10. The ’393 provisional discloses that the system may select a particular countermeasure based on (i) the particular zone within a protected area within which a drone is located, (ii) “the behavior of the hostile drone,” or (iii) “other instructions.” Id. ¶¶ 9, 10. But the ’393 provisional never discloses that these “other instructions” may include the identity of the drone. The system disclosed in the ’393 provisional uses the identity of a drone to determine whether to activate the countermeasure system. See id. ¶¶ 16–18. But there is no disclosure in the ’393 provisional that the countermeasure system, once activated, uses the identity of the drone to develop the particular countermeasure to be employed. See generally Ex. 1006. Thus, though the Whitmarsh reference itself contains ample written description support for limitation [19e], the earlier-filed ’393 provisional does not. On this record, and having reviewed the ’393 provisional in its entirety, we determine that the ’393 provisional does not “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of” the subject matter of limitation [19e] of Whitmarsh’s claim 19 “as of the filing date” of the ’393 provisional. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.” slip op. at 27

  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 10,249,199
• ZF North America, Inc. / ZF Active Safety US Inc. v. Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 12, 2024 · IPR2023-00273 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 5, 7, 8, 14–19, 24, and 25 are unpatentable under §103 over the grounds decided; the motion to exclude was denied in part and dismissed in part.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Both parties agree that one skilled in the relevant art would have had a bachelor’s degree in a relevant engineering discipline, plus at least two years of experience with what each believes to be the relevant technology. Though Patent Owner objects to explicitly listing a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering as a qualifying educational background, its proposed formulation includes open-ended language (i.e., “or a similar discipline”) that is broad enough to encompass electrical engineering degrees. Patent Owner also concedes that Dr. Lequesne, who has a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Hrg. Tr. 36:9–21. Accordingly, it does not appear that there is a substantive dispute regarding the educational requirements that is relevant to this proceeding. As to the necessary experience, Petitioner correctly points out that “most” claims of the ’415 Patent do not recite isolators or require attenuation or damping. Pet. Reply 23. However, the challenged independent claims (claims 5, 8, 16, and 17) all recite at least an isolator with a damping coefficient, and the ’415 Patent repeatedly mentions noise attenuation as being a goal of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:53–55, 5:33– 56. Patent Owner’s proposal also uses the disjunctive “or,” and thus is broad one or more of vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation. On this record, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposal, and determine that one of ordinary skill in the art to which the ’415 Patent pertains would have had a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in mechanical engineering, automotive engineering, or a similar discipline, and at least two years of experience with vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems. We find that this formulation is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355. We note, however, that none of the issues in this case appears to turn on differences between the parties’ proposed formulations, and that all of the findings and conclusions set forth below would have remained the same had we instead adopted Petitioner’s proposed formulation. C.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We begin our analysis of this dispute by looking at the language of the claims themselves. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In so doing, we note that Patent Owner is correct in asserting that certain claims recite a vibration isolator disposed between a sub-frame and an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, Claims 16, 17; PO Resp. 17. Other challenged claims, however, do not contain any limitations that pertain to an actuator housing. See Ex. 1001, claims 5, 7, 8. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, thus, would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into at least claims 5, 7, and 8. Next, we turn to the specification. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582. In so doing, we note that it is generally improper to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims because 35 U.S.C. § 112 “requires that the claims themselves set forth the limits of the patent grant, [and] also definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. There are, of course, exceptions. A specification may contain a “special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 805 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). But any such special definition must “clearly redefine a claim term ‘so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine the claim term.’” Elekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Process Control Corp. v. Hydreclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The specification also may “reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal of claim scope by the inventor.” Phillips, 415. F.3d at 1316. But any such disclaimer “must be clear.” Conoco, Inc. v. Energy & Envtl. Int’l, L.C., 460 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Patent Owner is correct in its assertion that the specific embodiments disclosed in the ’415 Patent specification have separate sub-frames and actuator housings. See PO Resp. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1001, 4:44–54, 6:36–54). But the specification also makes clear that the applicant intended for these embodiments not to be construed as limiting the scope of the claims. See Ex. 1001, 8:36–42 (clarifying that the disclosed embodiments “are set forth here by way of illustration but not of limitation”). Patent Owner identifies nothing in the specification that rises to level of a definition or clear and intentional disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope, and we see no such definition or disclaimer in the specification. Patent Owner’s reliance on In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017), is also misplaced. In re broadest reasonable interpretation standard—a standard that does not apply in this case. See id. at 1381–82. Moreover, the claim construction at issue in Smith was so broad that the Federal Circuit characterized it as “generic.” See id. at 1382. Here, the parties agree that the claim term sub-frame has a specific meaning: a frame for a sub-assembly. See PO Resp. 16; Pet. Reply 13; Hrg. Tr. 13:7–12. Nothing in Smith requires or suggests that under the Phillips standard, we must interpret the non-generic claim term “sub-frame” in a way that would incorporate new limitations pertaining to an actuator housing into claims that do not even mention an actuator housing.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “We decline to find Dr. Lequesne less credible based solely on his electrical engineering degree and relative level of experience with noise vibration and damping. As noted above, Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to give testimony from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. Petitioner asserts, and Patent Owner does not dispute, that “Dr. Lequesne has spent his 40-year career as a designer in the automotive industry, has worked on EPBA [electronic parking brake actuators and NVH [noise, vibration, and harshness].” Pet. Reply 24 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 7–9; Ex. 2007, 10:6–17, 11:21–16:3, 20:3–31:8; Ex. 1023). On this record, we find Dr. Lequesne qualified to provide expert testimony on the subject matter of the challenged claims of the ’415 Patent and asserted prior art references because he has a degree in electrical engineering, which is a “similar discipline,” and at least two years of experience with “vibration isolation, vibration damping, or noise attenuation in the context of mechanical or electromechanical systems.” See supra § III.B; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 4–12 (outlining Dr. Lequesne’s education and experience); Hrg. Tr. 36:9– 21 (Patent Owner’s counsel conceding that Dr. Lequesne is qualified to provide expert testimony). In judging the credibility of competing witnesses, we have weighed their testimony, taking into account the witnesses’ different educational qualifications and experiential backgrounds as they pertain to the ’415 Patent, as well as whether the witnesses offer corroboration for their opinions, and whether those opinions are consistent with the ’415 Patent, the prior art, and their cross-examination testimony. E.” slip op. at 14

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s purported evidence of copying, industry praise, and commercial success lacks nexus to the claimed invention. To show that the accused devices at issue, i.e., the purportedly copied, praised, and commercially successful products sold be Petitioner, are coextensive with at least one independent claim of the ’415 Patent, Patent Owner relies on the claim charts shown in Exhibit 2016. PO Resp. 62; Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163–166. Patent Owner identifies those charts as “Exhibits A and B from Patent Owner’s Infringement Contentions, served in Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. v. ZF North America, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:22cv10289.” Id. at viii. As such, the claim charts are apparently attorney argument summarizing Patent Owner’s allegations in the district court, not substantive evidence. See Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Attorney argument is not evidence.”). Patent Owner’s attempt to challenged claims also constitutes an improper incorporation by reference. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) (“Arguments must not be incorporated by reference from one document into another document.”); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide 35–36; Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC, IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 8–10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative). Moreover, Dr. Stein’s declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his belief that “there is a component in each of the photographed products” in the claim charts “that corresponds to each one of the claim elements,” his “overall agreement with the positions taken in the claim charts,” or his “understand[ing]” that the accused devices “in Ex. 2016 are co-extensive in scope with the ’415 Patent.” Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 163, 166. Dr. Stein’s declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the accused devices and the claimed invention, and is thus insufficient to establish a nexus. See Bosch Auto. Serv. Sol., LLC v. Matal, 878 F.3d 1027, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As the Board recognized, however, the Pierce declaration lacks any explanation or analysis to support his asserted ‘understand[ing]’ that these commercial reset tools are covered by, or coextensive with, the claims of the ’796 patent. The Board permissibly concluded that this conclusory testimony lacks foundation.”); In re Cree, Inc., 818 F.3d 694, 703–04 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We agree with the Board that Dr. Brandes’ declaration merely repeats, in conclusory fashion, that there is a nexus between the success of white LEDs and the claimed invention.”). Patent Owner has thus failed to make a sufficient showing to establish a presumption of nexus. its secondary considerations evidence is a direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed invention. For the reasons explained above, we conclude that Patent Owner’s evidence purportedly showing copying, industry praise, and commercial success is entitled to little weight in our obviousness analysis because Patent Owner has not shown a sufficient nexus between the evidence presented and the invention claimed in any of the challenged claims. F.” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 7,021,415 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,021,415
• Siemens Industry Software Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 11, 2023 · IPR2021-01215 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–15, 17, 18, and 21–24 are unpatentable over Yoshimura-based grounds; claims 6, 9, 10, 16, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “B. Level of Skill in the Art Petitioner offers an assessment as to the level of skill in the art as of the time the ’655 patent was filed. Pet. 9. For purposes of this proceeding, Petitioner and Petitioner’s declarant “adopt the [following] definition for the person of ordinary skill in the art”: “a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering or Computer Engineering, and has either received academic credits for an ASIC design course or completed at least one year of work experience in the VLSI design, electronic design automation for VLSI, or ASIC design fields.” Id. at 9–10; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (Robins Declaration). Patent Owner applies the same definition. Resp. 5. To the extent necessary, we accept this definition because it is supported by the Robins Declaration and consistent with the ’655 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Although the phrase “separate from,” is not found in the claims, we look to the language of the claims, the description in the patent disclosure, and the prosecution history to determine what type of separateness is required by the claims. We start with the relied-upon Figure 4 of the ’655 patent, which illustrates a box labeled “Multi-Scenario ECO Database 426” that is near, but not overlapping with or surrounding, boxes labeled “Image 424” through “Image 422” and “Image 420.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 4. The ’655 patent also describes a storage device 408 as “storing scenario images 420– 424 that correspond to different scenarios,” and “can additionally store multi-scenario ECO database 426,” which “can include circuit information for multiple scenarios that can be used to estimate the impact of ECOs in multiple scenarios.” Ex. 1001, 5:9–11, 5:18–21.” slip op. at 9

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “determin[e/ing . . . ] an ECO to fix one or more design requirement violations, wherein said determining includes identifying an ECO to fix a design requirement violation in the scenario and checking that ECO against at least some of the multiple scenarios by estimating parameter values based on parameter values stored in the scenario image and the multi-scenario ECO database. Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2001, 21-24). In reviewing the term, the District Court explained that the multi- scenario ECO database “stores parameters and allows for a quick estimation of an ECO’s impact across multiple scenarios.” Ex. 2001, 19. The District Court further summarized the ’655 patent as describing that a scenario image is “[f]irst” loaded, and if there is a design requirement violation, an ECO is determined for that scenario, and then subsequent scenarios are loaded to check whether the ECO from the first scenario will create new, or exacerbate existing, design violations. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:21–33). However, as recognized by the Court, the process at the cited section is described in the ’655 patent as an “approach [that] may take an impracticably long time to fix design requirement violations in multiple scenarios” due to the long time that is required to load a scenario image. Id. at 24; Ex. 1001, 4:43–47. The Court reasoned that in order to determine an ECO to fix a violation, “determine” must involve “identifying” a possible fix and “checking” whether that fix is suitable. Id. at 23. Thus, the District Court’s construction requires both identifying and checking as part of the claimed determining step. Id. at 23–24. We agree with the District Court’s reasoning, and apply their construction in this proceeding.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner assertion that Yoshimura’s estimation in step S5 is performed to check an identified ECO is supported by the record. In determining the change to be made (the ECO), Yoshimura uses estimated parameters for the third and fourth corner conditions, calculated in step S5 through the “Hold Margin” equation. Ex. 1007, 6:63–67. Those third and fourth corner conditions are then used to check potential layouts identified in step S6. Id. at 7:18–20 (“In step S6, the automatic EC device 16 searches for a layout that does not cause a timing error under any one of the first to fourth comer conditions from the analysis results of step S4 and step S5.”). In this manner, step S5 sets an initial third corner condition having estimated parameter values that is included, as the initial step, in checking an identified ECO at steps S6–S8. Thus, Yoshimura’s determination of a change to satisfy the corner conditions is, to use Dr. Edward’s phrase, “based on” its third and fourth corner conditions having parameters estimated in step S5. For this reason, we determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Yoshimura discloses the claimed limitation.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,407,655 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,407,655
• Beable Education, Inc. v. Achieve3000, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2023 · IPR2021-01169 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious over Cappellucci_949, Cappellucci_934, Cupp, and Tudor.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “nonobviousness. Objective evidence of nonobviousness, when present, must be considered as part of an obviousness inquiry. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc., 699 F.3d 1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Notwithstanding what the teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, the totality of the evidence submitted, including objective evidence of nonobviousness, may lead to a conclusion that one or more of the challenged claims would not have been” slip op. at 70

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedMixed

    “and 1022 are inadmissible in that any copyright dates on these exhibits are hearsay not falling into any exception. MTE 3–4. We are not persuaded by this argument. As an initial matter, for the same reasons discussed as to the first argument, the copyright date goes to public availability, which, under Yeda Research, is not a basis to exclude these two exhibits. See MTE Opp. 7 (relying on the prior discussion as to this argument). Thus, Petitioner need not rely on the date in the copyright marks for the truth of the matter asserted—i.e., the years.17 See id. (arguing that “the dates listed on the disputed evidence are not hearsay because Petitioner is not relying on them ‘to prove the truth of the matter asserted’” (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2)). Accordingly, the copyright marks in Exhibits 1017 and 1022 are not hearsay in the context of how they are relied on by Petitioner in this proceeding.” slip op. at 90

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,652,993 unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,652,993
• Amazon.Com, Inc. / Amazon.Com LLC et al. v. VB Assets, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 7, 2022 · IPR2020-01367 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 were not shown unpatentable because Kennewick did not teach the claimed ambiguity of words having different meanings in different contexts or the required context identification.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “the prior art and the claimed invention. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) “would have at least a Bachelor-level degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or a related field in computing technology, and two years of experience with automatic speech recognition and natural language understanding, or equivalent education, research experience, or knowledge.” Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 28–31). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s assertion, and Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Gershman, both apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA. Resp. 3. On this record and given the absence of any dispute, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the cited prior art references. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355.” slip op. at 8

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

    “[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In its Petition, Petitioner asks us to construe the “implicit hypothesis” term of claims 38, 40, and 42. Pet. 7–8. As discussed above, however, Patent Owner filed a disclaimer that eliminated these claims from this proceeding. Petitioner does not ask us to construe any terms in the remaining challenged claims. See id.; see generally Reply. Patent Owner also does not ask us to construe any claim terms. See generally Response. On this record, we decline to adopt constructions of any claims. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017. slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Dr. Smyth’s declaration testimony about words having different meanings in different contexts is unpersuasive. Dr. Smyth testifies that the keyword “‘temperature’ could be interpreted as an outdoor temperature or as a body temperature depending on context.” See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69. This testimony is not persuasive because the word “temperature” refers to a measurement of warmth or coolness in both examples. That is, “temperature” has the same meaning in both contexts. Moreover, as Dr. Gershman points out, Kennewick does not teach or suggest a body temperature. Ex. 2001 ¶ 26. Dr. Smyth’s testimony is unpersuasive for this additional reason. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 69.” slip op. at 17

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

    “forth by both parties, we are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the word “temperature” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. As detailed above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with the ordinary and customary language of the claims, the specification of the ’681 patent, and the disclosure of Kennewick. See id. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language and the specification of the ’681 patent, and are not adequately supported by the disclosure of Kennewick. On this record, and having considered the evidence and arguments put forth by both parties, we also are not persuaded that Kennewick teaches or suggests that the phrase “what about flight one hundred and twenty too?” has different meanings in different contexts, as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. See Resp. 6–7; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 28–30. Moreover, even if the “flight” example did describe two contexts (one in which “flight 122” exists, and one in which it does not), Petitioner’s argument would still fail because Petitioner has offered no persuasive evidence that Kennewick teaches or suggests identifying one of these two alleged contexts based on Kennewick’s short-term shared information (dialog history) and long-term shared information (user profiles) as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 25. For the reasons explained above, Patent Owner’s arguments and the supporting testimony of Dr. Gershman are consistent with and supported by the claims and specification of the ’681 patent and the disclosure of Kennewick. See Resp. 4–6; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 23–27. In contrast, Petitioner’s arguments are not consistent with or supported by the ordinary and customary meaning of the claim language, the specification of the ’681 patent, or the disclosure of Kennewick.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 8,073,681 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,073,681
• Telesign Corporation v. Twilio Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 6, 2019 · IPR2017-01977 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 5, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are unpatentable as obvious over Maes and Ransom, alone or with Jiang; the ETSI-based grounds were not proven.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “had “a bachelor’s degree in computer science with at least two years of experience in application development.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 49–50). Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “the equivalent of a four-year degree from an accredited institution in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, software engineering, or the equivalent, and approximately 1–2 years of professional experience with or exposure to computer networking, telephony networking protocols, and various APIs,” but “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, while significant experience in the field might substitute for formal education.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2010 ¶ 32).” slip op. at 5

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

    “transfer (REST) API” to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application state.” PO Resp. 10. Petitioner does not propose an express construction for the term “representational state transfer (REST) API,” but acknowledged at the oral hearing that Patent Owner’s proposed construction “simply makes express what [Petitioner] implies.” Tr. 32:24–33:13. Patent Owner’s proposed construction is supported by the specification of the ’376 patent and the extrinsic evidence. Specifically, the ’376 patent indicates that the term “REST” has its ordinary meaning in the art (Ex. 1001, 2:15–16, 8:12–14), and Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Negus, explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “REST API” to refer to the interface constraints set forth in Patent Owner’s proposed construction (Ex. 2010 ¶¶ 163–166). Patent Owner’s proposed construction also is consistent with the construction that was adopted by the District Court in a related case. Ex. 2005, 16–22. Therefore, the term “representational state transfer (REST) API” is construed to mean “an application programming interface that complies with Representational State Transfer (REST) interface constraints, which are: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and hypermedia as the engine of application state.”” slip op. at 7

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

    “had reason to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom. Pet. 12, 14, 22–24, 27–29 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58, 62–75, 80–82, 88). We agree with and adopt Petitioner’s reasoning. Specifically, Maes and Ransom relate to the same field of endeavor as the ’376 patent, namely, web services. Pet. 12, 14; Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:10, 15:51–61; Ex. 1003, 3:52–65; Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 5, 42, 46, 57–58, 69–70, 78; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 51–58. It would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because Ransom’s REST API is a common web service model that provides similar functionality and has several design advantages over Maes’s SOAP API, such as increased interface flexibility and lower bandwidth requirements. Pet. 22–24, 27–29; Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 62–75, 80–82. It also would have been obvious to combine the cited teachings of Maes and Ransom because the teachings of Maes and Ransom are interrelated. Pet. 24, 28–29; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88; see KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (“Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents.”). Namely, Maes teaches using a web service (Ex. 1003, 3:52–65, 15:66–16:4; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88), and Ransom explains that REST is one of two common web service models (Ex. 1004 ¶ 163; Ex. 1009 ¶ 88).” slip op. at 24

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsObjective indicia no nexusObjective indicia outweighedMixed

    “Therefore, because the evidence of record indicates that Petitioner had access to some of Patent Owner’s technology, but does not show specifically that Petitioner copied the invention claimed in the ’376 patent, the objective indicia of copying at best only weighs slightly in favor of non-obviousness.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,755,376 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,755,376
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01679 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13–15, and 17 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, and 20–22 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claims 18–19 are obvious over …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “location.” See PO Resp. 21–22; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term “central monitoring device” is not further limited to a device that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 21–22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an open-ended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 20–22; Tr. 38:1–17. Though Patent Owner cites one dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constantly checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear that monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:2–31, 8:57–64. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe “central monitoring device” as “a device that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’901 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:13–23, 2:38–44. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–43. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’901 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’901 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. 3.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the claim term “central monitoring device” in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:10–16, 6:37–42, 7:13–20, 7:52–59, 8:23–38); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 19–32.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 6,225,901 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,225,901
• Infobionic, Inc. v. Braemar Manufacturing, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 29, 2016 · IPR2015-01688 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers; claims 3, 5, 8, 9, 17, and 18 are obvious over Sellers and Stutman; claim 10 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation concerning the level of ordinary skill in the art because this formulation more accurately describes the subject matter to which the ’403 Patent pertains. Patent Owner’s formulation is unduly narrow because subject matter of the ’403 Patent is not limited to “ECG telemetry devices” or other “remote monitoring and telemetry devices.” The parties do not dispute that Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are both qualified to testify about the perspective of one having ordinary skill in the art, regardless of which formulation we adopt. Tr. 24:22–25:3, 62:6–11. The parties also agree that the issues in this case do not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s proposed formulations regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 24:13–19, 62:12–21. On this record, we find that both Dr. Stone and Dr. Fernald are qualified to offer expert opinions in this case. The factual findings and legal conclusions set forth below would not have differed had we adopted Patent Owner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 16

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that a central monitoring device/service is a device/service that “watch[es], keep[s] track of, or check[s]” on something “from a central location.” See PO Resp. 21; Reply 2. On this record, we determine that the claim term central monitoring device/service is not further limited to a device/service that performs monitoring “during a monitoring session” such that it is able to “respond to patient status . . . when it detects evidence of certain physiologic conditions as they occur.” See PO Resp. 20– 22. The Specification uses the term “central monitoring device” in an openended manner, and Patent Owner does not identify any lexicographic definition or disclaimer that would limit this claim term in the manner it proposes. See PO Resp. 19–22; Tr. 38:1–17. The term “central monitoring service” does not appear in the Specification. Though Patent Owner cites a dictionary that defines “monitoring” as “constant checking on a patient’s condition” (Ex. 2021, 930), this definition is overly narrow because the Specification makes clear monitoring may be performed on a periodic basis. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 3:6–35, 8:63–9:2. Moreover, Patent Owner’s other dictionary definition (Ex. 2020, 752) does not reference a patient, or require detecting “physiologic conditions as they occur.” Dr. Fernald’s testimony regarding this claim term (Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 39– 41) is not persuasive because the portions of the Specification he cites do not limit the term central monitoring device/service in the manner Patent Owner proposes (see Ex. 2003 ¶ 39 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:14–20, 6:42–47, 7:17–25, 7:57–64, 8:28–42); Tr. 38:1–17), and because Dr. Fernald does not adequately account for the dictionary evidence indicating that the claim term “monitoring” does not require constantly observing a patient’s status (see Ex. 2020, 752). We find persuasive Dr. Stone’s testimony that one of ordinary skill would have understood the portions of the Specification cited by Patent Owner and Dr. Fernald to be non-limiting examples. Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 21–34. For the foregoing reasons, on this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we construe central monitoring device/service as a device or service “that watches, keeps track of, or checks from a central location.” 2.” slip op. at 9

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

    “On this record, and under the applicable broadest reasonable interpretation standard, we determine that the claim term “in communication with” encompasses indirect communications (e.g., communication by way of an intermediate component). We further determine that a processor need not generate a message, or respond to a message, in order to be “in communication with” a separate component. The ’403 Patent Specification uses the term “in communication with” in a broad, open-ended manner. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:17–27, 2:42–48. In addition, Patent Owner does not cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have read the claim term “in communication with” to exclude embodiments in which a processor merely receives information. See PO Resp. 40–44. Nor does Patent Owner cite any persuasive intrinsic or extrinsic evidence that the claim term “in communication with” excludes communication between a processor and a component when the processor is acting as an intermediary between that component and some other component. See id. In addition, Dr. Fernald fails to sufficiently support his conclusion that the claim term “in communication with” excludes such forms of communication. See Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 99–103. 4.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on the arguments and evidence presented in the Petition and having considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties during the trial, we are persuaded that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11–16, and 19–23 are anticipated by Sellers. 4.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 6,940,403 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,940,403

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.