- PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00688 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–18 because this was the second-ranked petition and the Director directed institution of only one petition.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandDecided for patent owner
“Remand, do not institute inter partes review based on the second-ranked petition on this complete record. As stated in the Remand, “Petitioners present ten total grounds challenging the claims of the ’370 patent and thirteen total grounds challenging the claims of the ’218 patent [in IPR2025- 00717 and IPR2025-00718].” Remand 3. The Remand cites to the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, which “explains that ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations’ and ‘multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.’” Id. (citing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) § II.D.2 (Dec. 12, 2025)). The Remand states: “The TPG further explains that dispute requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.’ TPG § II.D.2.” Id. at 2–3. The Remand determines: “Given that Petitioners had ample room in each petition to present multiple grounds challenging the claims of each patent, this was not a ‘rare’ circumstance that justified the filing of multiple petitions against each patent.” Id. at 3. The Remand explains that “absent exceptional circumstances, in a case where there is a dispute over priority date, the Board should either resolve the priority date issue or institute, at most, the first-ranked petition.” Id. The Director instructed the Board panel “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4. We interpret the Remand as stating that the Director has determined that only one petition for each patent should have been instituted, and as delegating the discretionary authority to the panel to determine which of the two petitions to institute. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and in view of Petitioner’s ranking of this Petition as the second-ranked petition, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“Remand, do not institute inter partes review based on the second-ranked petition on this complete record. As stated in the Remand, “Petitioners present ten total grounds challenging the claims of the ’370 patent and thirteen total grounds challenging the claims of the ’218 patent [in IPR2025- 00717 and IPR2025-00718].” Remand 3. The Remand cites to the Board’s Trial Practice Guide, which “explains that ‘one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations’ and ‘multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in the vast majority of cases.’” Id. (citing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Practice Guide (“TPG”) § II.D.2 (Dec. 12, 2025)). The Remand states: “The TPG further explains that dispute requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.’ TPG § II.D.2.” Id. at 2–3. The Remand determines: “Given that Petitioners had ample room in each petition to present multiple grounds challenging the claims of each patent, this was not a ‘rare’ circumstance that justified the filing of multiple petitions against each patent.” Id. at 3. The Remand explains that “absent exceptional circumstances, in a case where there is a dispute over priority date, the Board should either resolve the priority date issue or institute, at most, the first-ranked petition.” Id. The Director instructed the Board panel “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4. We interpret the Remand as stating that the Director has determined that only one petition for each patent should have been instituted, and as delegating the discretionary authority to the panel to determine which of the two petitions to institute. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and in view of Petitioner’s ranking of this Petition as the second-ranked petition, we deny institution of inter partes review.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,933,370 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00718 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–4 and 6–26 because it instituted the higher-ranked competing petition, IPR2025-00717.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedOther
“The Director granted Director Review, finding that the panel “abused its discretion in granting institution of two petitions that each challenge the same claims” of the ’218 patent. Paper 38 (“Remand Order”), 2. The Director vacated the DI and remanded the case to the Board “to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4.” slip op. at 4
- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“In its Explanation regarding the necessity of multiple petitions, Petitioner requests that, “if the Board uses its discretion to institute the Petitions, the Board consider the merits of IPR2025-00[71]7 (“Vosteen589/Lissianski Petition”) before IPR2025-00[71]8 (“Sjostrom/Baldrey Petition”).” Paper 2, 3. Because we institute trial in IPR2025-00717 (see IPR2025-00717, Paper 41), under the Director’s instruction in the Remand Order, and based on Petitioner’s ranking of the petitions of IPR2025-00717 and IPR2025-00718, we deny institution in this case.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,926,218 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00687 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted IPR on claims 1–8 and 10–18 over all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandInstituted
“Paper 34, 1 (requesting “Director Review of the Director’s August 22, 2025 Decision Referring the Petition to the Board (‘Referral Decision’)”). Patent Owner argued that institution of IPR2025-00687 and IPR2025-00688 “should be discretionarily denied.” Id. at 5. Petitioner opposed. Paper 37. The Director granted review and found that “granting institution of two petitions that each challenge the same claims of the ’370 patent and ’218 patent 2” was an “abuse[] of discretion.” Paper 40, 1. The Director remanded the cases “to the Board panel to determine which of the two petitions challenging each of the ’370 and ’218 patents to institute.” Id. at 3. Pursuant to the Director’s instruction that we choose only one of the two petitions challenging the ’370 patent to institute, and for the reasons set forth below, we choose to institute review of the ’370 patent in this Petition, and not in IPR2025-00688.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot time barredDecided for petitioner
“the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) and § 315(b). See, e.g., Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 152 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, the prior art itself can reflect the appropriate level of ordinary skill in the art. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner “[does] not, at this time, contend that any term requires construction,” and instead, states that “[a]ll terms have been accorded their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Patent Owner asserts that it “does not presently propose any constructions,” but discusses the Board’s claim construction in IPR2020- 00834, Paper 18, 7–8. Prelim. Resp. 7. Claim terms need only be construed to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On this record and for purposes of this Decision, we see no need to construe any claim term expressly.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,933,370 - PTAB · Feb 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00717 · APJ Zhenyu Yang · IPR · Remand
On remand, the Board instituted IPR of claims 1–4 and 6–26 on all six asserted obviousness grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
RulingsRemand decision- Director reviewDirector review, grantedOther
“The Director granted Director Review, finding that the panel “abused its discretion in granting institution of two petitions that each challenge the same claims” of the ’218 patent. Paper 39, 2. The Director vacated the DI and remanded the case “to the Board panel to determine which of the two petitions” to institute. Id. at 4.” slip op. at 4
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“On November 4, 2025, we instituted inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the grounds raised in the Petition. Paper 35 (“DI”). In the DI, we noted that “Petitioner filed an explanation regarding the necessity of multiple petitions,” and “Patent Owner d[id] not challenge that multiple petitions are necessary” in the Preliminary Response. Paper 23, 3 n.3.” slip op. at 3
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . 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). For the reasons provided below, we determine Petitioner has satisfied the threshold requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Therefore, we institute inter partes review of all challenged claims based on all the grounds raised in this Petition.3” slip op. at 4
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] would have at least a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a related field of study with at least two years of experience implementing pollution control in power generation plants for natural gas, coal, and/or industrial waste incineration.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48–51). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because it is consistent with the skill level reflected in the disclosures of the ’218 patent and prior art. See Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355 (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,926,218 - Geneoscopy, Inc. v. Exact Sciences CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01330 · APJ Ryan H Flax · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3, 4, and 12–19 are unpatentable as obvious under each asserted ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
- Expert testimonyOther
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“embody claims of the ’746 patent, the product has features not covered by the ’746 patent’s claims, some of which are critical unclaimed elements according to Patent Owner. Accordingly, Cologuard is not coextensive with the challenged claims, and no nexus between the product and the challenged claims is shown on this record.” slip op. at 35
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“developed where the patient need not manipulate their fecal sample to portion it, but the law of obviousness does not require an option to be the best option to be obvious. For these reasons, bearing in mind that the ultimate burden here is always on Petitioner, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument. We also reject Patent Owner’s argument that only impermissible” slip op. at 60
Patent outcomesUS 11,970,746 unpatentable§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,970,746 - Axion Biosystems, Inc. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01467 · APJ David Cotta · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8 and 11–15 were not shown unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones because the proposed combination did not establish obvious millisecond time resolution.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of May 2009 “would have had a B.S. in electrical/mechanical/biomedical engineering or biological science, or a related field, and approximately 2 years of relevant experience or equivalent study in systems and methods for bioanalysis of cells.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–25). Patent Owner adopts this definition for purposes of this proceeding. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 19). We find Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art to be consistent with the level of skill reflected in the ’508 patent and in the prior art of record. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s definition in this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“As used herein, “impedance measurement at millisecond time resolution” refers to the ability to perform a series of at least two consecutive impedance measurements within milliseconds of one another for each and every well of the system where each well is associated with an electrode array for impedance measurement. In each instance the time between two consecutive impedance measurements are less than 300 milliseconds from one another. Id. at 10:8–15. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the definitional nature of the first sentence in the passage above. That is, the parties agree that millisecond time resolution should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15 (proposing construction); Pet. Reply. 23 (“Axion also agrees that the term ‘millisecond time resolution’ is ‘the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.’”). The parties also agree that we do not need to determine whether the time interval between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 milliseconds, as set forth in the definition portion of the specification, or whether it can be met by some other time interval, as suggested by other portions of the specification. See e.g., Ex. 1001, 23:49–55 (explaining that “[i]n some embodiments 500 millisecond time resolution is sufficient”), 24:37–39 (similar); PO Resp. 15 (arguing that “the distinction between 300 milliseconds and 500 milliseconds is immaterial to the dispute in this IPR because Jones teaches a 1.5 second update period, thus at least three times longer than the 500 milliseconds formulation”); Pet. Reply 23–24 (section headed “[Petitioner] Agrees That, In This IPR, The 300 Versus 500 Milliseconds Distinction is Immaterial To Addressing the Unpatentability of the Challenged Claims”), see also, Pet. Reply 24–26 (asserting that the claims are indefinite because it is not clear whether they require a 300 or a 500 millisecond time interval, but arguing that “the claims’ unpatentability can be determined without resolving the 300 versus 500 milliseconds indefiniteness issue”). We agree with the parties that “millisecond time resolution” should be construed to mean: “the time between two consecutive impedance measurements for each and every well being evaluated in the claimed apparatus or system.” PO Resp. 15; Pet. Reply. 23. We further agree that resolution of this case does not require that we determine whether the period between two consecutive impedance measurements is less than 300 or less than 500 milliseconds because Petitioner has not carried its burden under either time interval.” slip op. at 7
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1003 ¶ 179. But Dr. Kim does not cite to any additional supporting evidence or provide any technical reasoning to support his statements. The notion that one can reduce the time between measurements by, e.g., reducing the number of frequencies measured, has intuitive appeal and appears mathematically correct. However, the absence of technical reasoning and supporting evidence diminishes the persuasiveness of Dr. Kim’s testimony that the POSA would made such modifications to reduce the time between measurements. Dr. Kim does provide some technical reasoning in connection with his discussion of eliminating all reference channels as a way to get the time resolution down to the levels required by, e.g., claim 14, which recites a millisecond time resolution of “less than 5 milliseconds.” See e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 172 (“A POSA seeking to study biological cell phenomena occurring on the order of a few milliseconds would have recognized that after measuring the reference network channels at the start, the reference network channels would not need measured again for some time, e.g., because temperature and other drift factors do not change appreciably on a millisecond time scale.”). However, even if we were to credit this testimony, Dr. Kim still lacks support and reasoning for the selection of the other parameters in his noreference-channel calculations. See, e.g., id. ¶ 173 (positing, but not providing technical reasoning for using, a no-reference-channel impedance system with 16 wells, a single 10kHz measurement frequency, and 16 daughter boards that measure simultaneously rather than sequentially).” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Given that Jones’s only exemplified embodiment targets a 1.5 second update period, that Jones does not suggest reducing the update period, and that much of Jones’s focus is on benefits other than speed of measurement, Jones’s impedance analyzer seems an unlikely choice for a POSA seeking to take measurements having millisecond time resolution. Put another way, we find no persuasive non-hindsight reason that supports Petitioner’s assertion that the POSA would have sought to apply Jones’s impedance analyzer to Xu-752’s system in order to take measurements in millisecond time resolution.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 11,906,508 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,906,508 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 30, 2025 · IPR2024-01072 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the listed prior-art combinations; the Board also denied Patent Owner’s motion to strike.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’960 patent. Dec. on Inst. 10. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree,” and “at least 2 years of experience designing eyewear and/or consumer electronics,” and that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. (citing Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 28)) (alteration in original). Patent Owner proposes a different definition for one of ordinary skill in the art, but does not specifically address any deficiencies in Petitioner’s proposed definition. PO Resp. 6. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’960 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis herein, however, does not turn on which of the parties’ definitions we adopt.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededPlain and ordinary meaningOther
“Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 11; PO Resp. 5–6; Pet. Reply 1–2. We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. 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)) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”). We afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for a determination under § 103 when it is analogous to the claimed invention. In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Below we focus on the first of these tests. “We determine the field of endeavor ‘by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.’” Netflix, Inc. v. DIVX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325)). We agree with Petitioner and find that the ’960 patent is in the field of eyewear and consumer electronics. Pet. 13. The ’960 patent discloses that its “subject matter is directed to electronic eyewear modules and systems to be worn by a wearer, whereby an electronic eyewear system with a docking station can be easily joined with a plurality of electronic application modules.” Ex. 1001, 1:66–2:4; Pet. 9. We also agree with Petitioner that the ’960 patent acknowledges “a need for a single pair of fashionable eyewear capable of . . . utilizing one or more of a multitude of different application devices while the wearer is wearing the eyewear.” Ex. 1001, 1:59–62; Pet. Reply 13. Patent Owner argues that “[t]he ’960 [p]atent pertains to the field of wearable embedded electronics, namely ‘commercial eyewear comprising electronics.’” PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, 1:24–25). We view the parties’ descriptions of the field of the ’960 patent to be substantively the same.” slip op. at 25
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s “application module for eyewear is one such suitable device in which to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 156). This argument and testimony are consistent with Rosenblatt’s teaching of a wide variety of suitable devices. Compare id. and Ex. 1003 ¶ 156, with Ex. 1007 ¶ 7. Moreover, as Petitioner argues, Rosenblatt teaches that its “key . . . may include a clip or other connecting mechanism for attaching [the] key . . . to an object that the user typically carries,” such as “a user’s wallet, cellular telephone, personal media device (e.g., an iPod), wired headset, wireless headset, watch, bag, belt, article of clothing, or any other suitable object.” Ex. 1007 ¶ 43 (emphasis added). We find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that Jannard’s eyewear system is a carried object like a wired or wireless headset in the context of Rosenblatt’s teaching. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 156; Ex. 1007 ¶ 43. We also find persuasive Dr. Feland’s testimony that incorporating Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality into Jannard’s application module “desirably ‘provid[es] functional fashion having device operation capabilities,’ which is consistent with Rosenblatt recommendations.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 156 (quoting Ex. 1007 ¶ 58) (alteration in original); Ex. 1007 ¶ 58 (“[T]he key may be integrated with operation capabilities.”). We also find persuasive Petitioner’s argument and Dr. Feland’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Rosenblatt’s key or its functionality in Jannard’s application module to achieve the benefits disclosed in Rosenblatt, including controlling host devices responsive to wireless communication with Jannard’s application module. Pet. 47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 156. We view this as using a known technique (Rosenblatt’s teaching of incorporating a key or its functionality into an electronic device) to improve a similar device (Jannard’s eyewear and application module with wireless communication for functions) in the same way. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); see also Pet. 48; Ex. 1003 ¶ 157.” slip op. at 14
Patent outcomesUS 10,598,960 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,598,960 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 8,708,483 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01070 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–9 and 12–19 are unpatentable; claims 10 and 11 were not shown unpatentable, because the asserted grounds failed to establish unpatentability for those claims.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Based on the record currently before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“The parties agree that “constrain” means to retain the module in a fixed position. Patent Owner further interprets “constrain” not to allow minor movement. This interpretation is consistent with the ’174 patent, which states, In some embodiments, the first electrical conductor may be configured to constrain or substantially constrain the electronics module. As used in this context, “constrain” may refer to when the first electrical conductor is configured to provide support (i.e. a restraining force) for the electronics module to retain the module in a fixed position within the temple. That is, the first electrical conductor may be configured to hold the electronics module in place. . . . The term “substantially constrain” is used in this context to account for some minor movement of the electronics module within the temple, but the conductor may generally hold the electronics module within the temple in place (such that it remains in an operative position). Ex. 1001, 11:50–12:3 (emphasis added). Thus, the ’174 patent distinguishes between an electrical conductor configure to “constrain” an electronics module and an electrical conductor configured to “substantially constrain” an electronics module, with the latter allowing for “some minor movement of the electronics module.” We therefore adopt Patent Owner’s interpretation of “constrain” as used in claim 1 to mean the first and second electrical conductors are configured to provide a restraining force that retains the module in a fixed position without allowing for minor movement of the electronics module.7 This interpretation also is consistent with Petitioner’s interpretation, which includes retaining the module in a fixed position within the temple. See Pet. 20.” slip op. at 24
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“therefore, are unavailing. As correctly noted by Petitioner, Brunton discloses that “the [hearing aid] units may be provided with any suitable number of contact pins and the sockets provided with a corresponding number of tubular contacts that are positioned to receive the pins and in which the pins are frictionally retained.” Ex. 1003, 3:61–65 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Feland, testifies, Frictionally retaining the hearing aid unit’s pins in the cavity means that the socket contacts couple the hearing aid unit to the temple and constrain the hearing aid unit. Brunton’s socket contacts (corresponding to the claimed first and second electrical conductors) accordingly are configured to couple the hearing aid unit (corresponding to the claimed electronics module) to the temple to constrain the hearing aid unit. Ex. 1002 ¶ 64. We credit this testimony of Dr. Feland, which is consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of a friction-fit connection. We give less credit to the testimony of Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Oliver. Dr. Oliver testifies that “Brunton describes a cover plate that physically secures the sockets.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (citing Ex. 1003, 3:71–4:1). However, this assertion is contradicted by the very disclosure Dr. Oliver quotes in his declaration, which explains that the material of the temple retains the sockets in place: “The sockets for the transistor and unit, such as the sockets 19 and 20, may be frictionally held in the cavity or may be embedded in the material of the temple, as may be desired.” Ex. 1003, 3:71–74 (emphases added); see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same). Brunton does disclose a cover plate to cover the cavity, but Brunton does not disclose or suggest that the cover plate contacts or otherwise influences the hearing aid: “In the design shown, the temple is provided with a cover plate 31 that is secured in position over the unit 77 and the transistor 29 with screws 32.” Ex. 1003, 3:74–4:1; see also Ex. 2016 ¶ 87 (quoting same).” slip op. at 27
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We are persuaded that Petitioner has set forth adequate reasoning to combine the teachings of Eichelberger and Howell-596. Howell-596 teaches electronic circuitry having UV radiation monitoring capability that can be used within eyewear. Ex. 1015, code (57). Howell-596 discloses that the UV detection system can be activated by a switch, which can be a capacitive touch switch. Id. ¶¶ 88, 191; Ex. 1019, 172. As discussed above, Eichelberger teaches a capacitive touch switch with electronic components disposed thereon. Ex. at 3:6–14, 3:43–50. We are persuaded that using Eichelberger’s capacitive touch switch in place of Howell-596’s would have been obvious. See Pet. 83–84; Ex. 1002 ¶ 221. e. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 15 would have been obvious in view of the combination of Howell-596 and Eichelberger.” slip op. at 55
Patent outcomesUS 8,801,174 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,801,174 - Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 16, 2025 · IPR2024-01069 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–21 are unpatentable as obvious, including under Blum, Sikonowiz, and Howell-719; the Board rejected the separate Howell-719, Sikonowiz, and Blum ground for claims 14–21.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Petitioner contends that “no claim terms require construction to resolve the obviousness challenges here.” Pet. 16. Petitioner contends that, in its mappings of the challenged claims, it “identifies passages from the specification demonstrating that the prior art discloses claim terms in the manner [that] the ’355 patent uses them.” Id. at 17. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s contentions or proffer any constructions of its own. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no express construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or manufacturing engineering; mechatronics; electrical engineering plus coursework in mechanical engineering, manufacturing engineering, or mechatronics; or a similar technical degree,” and “would have also had at least 2 years of experience designing consumer electronics, such as eyewear with electronics.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). Petitioner contends that “[w]ork experience could substitute for formal education and additional formal education could substitute for work experience.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 32). Patent Owner contends that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or computer engineering, or an equivalent degree and, in addition, approximately two years of work experience with embedded electronic devices” and “[m]ore advanced degrees or training in a related discipline or both can compensate for shorter work experience.” PO Resp. 10 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 29–32). The parties do not identify, and we do not discern, any material difference between the parties’ proposed definitions. Based on the record currently before us, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of the level of ordinary skill. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). The Supreme Court’s decision in [KSR] directs us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly, stating that “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” [KSR, 550 U.S.] at 402 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 16
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“electronic components . . . comprising . . . at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope.” Ex. 1001, 30:15–28. Petitioner relies on Howell-719 to disclose a switch that the user operates “to control audio while wearing the glasses.” Pet. 47 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 93). Petitioner relies on Blum to disclose glasses including an accelerometer or gyroscope that allows the user to control a switch, thereby “allowing the user to use a head movement to change the functionality of the glasses.” Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1006, 30:39–45). Petitioner argues that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to [i]ncorporat[e] [Blum’s] accelerometer- or gyroscope-based switch controls into Howell-719 [as] a simple substitution of one known alternative (accelerometer/gyroscope-based motion detector allowing for head movement to activate switch) for a component (physical switches) serving the same purpose (allowing the user to activate switch to control functionality while the user is wearing the glasses and cannot see the switches) with the added benefit of hands-free control. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 130). Thus, Petitioner’s modification is to replace Howell-719’s “physical switch” with Blum’s “accelerometer/ gyroscope-based motion detector.” Claim 14 also recites “a capacitive touch switch operably coupled to an electronic component in the plurality of electronic components.” Ex. 1001, 30:26–28. Petitioner argues that “Howell-719 discloses a capacitive touch switch operably coupled to the speaker to control the speaker.” Pet. 48. However, as noted above, Petitioner modifies Howell-719’s glasses to replace its switch with an accelerometer/gyroscopebased motion detector. Thus, the glasses as modified by Petitioner do not include Howell-719’s switch, and it is not clear, based on the record, how the requirement for a capacitive touch switch is satisfied in this combination of references. See PO Resp. 18–20; see also PO Sur-reply 7. 2. Conclusion For at least these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 14–21 would have been obvious in view of Howell-719, Sikonowiz, and Blum.” slip op. at 42
Patent outcomesUS 10,613,355 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,613,355
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.