• Early Warning Services, LLC v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 11, 2026 · IPR2024-01221 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Final written decision

  Petitioner failed to prove claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 19–21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 39–41, and 43 unpatentable because the cited grounds did not establish the required …

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based barcode reader and not a laser-based barcode scanner because we are persuaded that claim language and Specification support that interpretation and also because Patent Owner persuasively shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term as such. Claim 1 recites an “image capture device configured to capture an image.” Ex. 1001, 16:24–25. The plain meaning of the claim term requires that the image be captured, not just scanned. The claim further requires “generating an output based on the information embedded in the image,” requiring that information is retrieved from the captured image. Id. at 16:32–33. A device that does not capture an image is not an “image capture device” under the plain language of the claim. A laser-based barcode scanner employs light reflected from a laser beam to “generate an electrical signal that corresponds to the bars and spaces in the barcode being scanned.” See Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 42–43 (explaining in detail how laser-based barcode self-emitting a laser light across a code to be scanned, with a sensor tuned to capture the reflected light from the laser.”). It simply does not capture an image. slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on our review of the complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art is reasonable because it is consistent with the evidence of record, including the asserted prior art. The field of the ’167 patent “relates generally to secure transactions, and more specifically, to methods and devices for providing secure identification, verification, and authorization using a portable secure device.” Ex. 1001, 1:8–11. The ’167 patent seeks “to provide methods and devices that are capable of providing secure transactions in a more efficient manner.” Id. at 3:11–13. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition. We note, however, that our patentability analysis would be the same under Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 11

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Wang fails to disclose limitation 1[a]. Wang discloses a portable electronic authorization device (PEAD) that can be used as a self-checkout terminal. Ex. 1004 ¶ 115. In this context, Wang discloses By entering the UPC code or barcode using keypad on the PEAD or scanning in the UPC code or barcode using the input device built into the PEAD such as a barcode scanner or OCR reader, the PEAD can generate the receipt with the list of item prices through the wireless network and Internet by querying the item price using the barcode as the index for price lookup table which is Stored in a Server System. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed above (Section III.C.1), we are persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that the claimed “image capture device” refers to an imaging-based device and not a laser-based barcode scanner. Petitioner does not contend that Wang’s disclosure of the barcode scanner necessarily refers to an imaging-based device, but argues that Wang’s disclosure is sufficient because “both imaging-based barcode scanners and laser-based barcode scanners constitute image capture devices.” Reply 11. In light of our claim construction above, we disagree.” slip op. at 27

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

    “Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Wang and Drummond. Pet. 30–43. 1. Drummond Drummond is a patent titled “Automated Banking Machine System and Method,” and “relates to an automated banking machine apparatus and system that are capable of use in a wide area network, and which provides a user with a remote electronic receipt or other record related to a transaction performed at the machine.” Ex. 1008, code (54), ¶ 2. Drummond discloses that its automated banking machine, may “initiate the sending of a non-paper transaction receipt to the customer,” “[t]he receipt may be sent using a wide area network, such as the Internet,” and “[t]he receipt may be an electronic receipt, for example a receipt in the form of an e-mail message.” Id. ¶ 247. 2. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 For this obviousness ground, Petitioner relies on the same arguments and evidence as its Ground 1a (anticipation by Wang), discussed above, for the majority of claim limitations. See Pet. 33–43. Importantly, Petitioner relies solely on Wang as teaching independent claim limitations [1a], [23a], and [43b] relating to an image capture device and embedded information. Pet. 36, 41, 43. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to Ground 1a, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 23, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 43 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the combination of Wang and Drummond.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 7,314,167 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,314,167
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2025-00748 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • 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)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89). Even considering Petitioner’s new theory, we find it unpersuasive because Petitioner does not explain adequately how the “determining a luminance value” recitation is met. Per Petitioner, Gallagher measures the coefficient of luminous intensity, but Petitioner does not identify a “luminance value” as recited in claim 15. Dr. Papanikolopoulos testifies that the coefficient of luminous intensity is not a luminance value: “As is well established, coefficient of luminous intensity—which is what Gallagher calculates—is a measurement of retroreflectivity (usually expressed in units of candelas, or millicandelas, per lux per square meter, i.e., cd/lx/m2), not luminance (usually expressed in candelas per square meter, i.e., cd/m2). Ex. 2023 ¶ 91. Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does not contest this testimony. See, e.g., Ex. 1030 ¶ 35. Thus, Petitioner’s new theory is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Mobileye Global, Inc. / ZF Active Safety And Electronics US LLC v. Facet Technology Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 23, 2026 · IPR2024-01110 · APJ Sean P O’Hanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 15 was not shown unpatentable under § 103 over Gallagher and Lumia because Petitioner did not persuasively explain why a skilled artisan would combine their teachings.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties disagree only on the length of experience an ordinarily skilled artisan would have, with Petitioner contending four years and Patent Owner contending two years. As noted by Petitioner, Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, does not provide an explanation for his opinion or support his definition of the level of ordinary skill with citations to evidence. See Ex. 2023 ¶ 57 (“In my opinion, [Petitioner’s definition] is an excessive level of ordinary skill in the art, and I believe instead [an ordinarily skilled artisan] would more likely have two years of experience rather than four years.”). On the other hand, Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Thorpe, does provide an explanation for his opinion, explaining that his assertion that four years of experience is required is based on the state of the art, typical undergraduate curricula, and his supervision of doctoral students. Ex. 1030 ¶ 23. Based on the arguments presented and the cited references, we find Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill reasonable and for purposes of this Decision, adopt it as our own. We note that we would reach the same conclusions under either proposed standard.” slip op. at 10

  • 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)). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no construction of any term is necessary. slip op. at 13

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not articulated persuasive reasoning for combining the teachings of Gallagher and Lumia. Petitioner argues that implementing Lumia’s teaching of determining the luminance of traffic signs in Gallagher’s system would allow Gallagher’s system to calculate the retroreflectivity of road markers as a means of identifying any markers that do not meet minimum acceptable reflectance levels for countries that require a minimum retroreflectivity level for road markers. Pet. 46 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 116; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 49, 77; Ex. 1019, 6, 8–11).7 However, Gallagher already discloses determining whether the 7 Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe cite to the original pagination of Exhibit 1019 rather than the added exhibit pagination. reflectance level of each road marker meets a predetermined minimum acceptable reflectance level and tagging those road markers that do not meet the minimum acceptable reflectance level to identify them for replacement. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 67–68; see also id. ¶¶ 12–13, 18, 21, 49, 51, 76, 79, Fig. 5. Indeed, both Petitioner and Dr. Thorpe describe Gallagher’s system as ensuring that road markers meet minimum retroreflectivity standards: “Gallagher’s apparatus tests ‘road markings and road markers such as, for example, road signs and posts, reflective painted lines whether continuous or broken, and . . . raised pavement markers’ ‘to ensure they continue to meet minimum standards of reflectivity/retroreflectivity.’” Pet. 9 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33); Ex. 1003 ¶ 55 (alteration in original) (emphasis added) (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 3, 6, 31–33). Thus, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified persuasively why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified Gallagher’s system to include Lumia’s process for measuring retroreflectivity of traffic signs.” slip op. at 19

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “coefficient of luminous intensity rather than the coefficient of retroreflectivity, and Lumia teaches how to calculate retroreflectivity based on the coefficient of luminance intensity. Pet. Reply 20–21. During the hearing, counsel for Petitioner clarified that this reliance on Lumia entails using the equations disclosed in Lumia without altering Gallagher’s hardware. Tr. 27:18–29:24. During his deposition , Dr. Thorpe confirmed that this obviousness theory relies only on Lumia’s equations. See Ex. 2025, 60:5–65:2. This is an improper new argument. See, e.g., Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A]n IPR petitioner may not raise in reply ‘an entirely new rationale’ for why a claim would have been obvious.”). Notably, this new obviousness theory appears to stem from Patent Owner’s witness, Dr. Papanikolopoulos, noting differences in Gallagher’s and Lumia’s disclosures. See Pet. Reply 21 (citing Ex. 2023 ¶¶ 71 n.2, 89).” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 9,335,255 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,335,255
• Iriusrisk, Inc. v. Threatmodeler Software Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2024 · IPR2023-00656 · APJ Stephen E Belisle · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Keenan did not disclose the claimed stored threats, and the obviousness combinations did not establish the mapping limitations or a reason to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “construction of “threat,” which we find in the context of the ’366 patent does not encompass “risk.” See supra § III.D.3.a.1 (discussing “‘Threats’ versus ‘Risks’”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s premise that “risk” includes “threats” or knowing risk allows for determination of threats is false, and belied by the parties’ experts who do not disagree on this distinction, namely that “risk” is not a “threat,” but rather represents the likelihood of a threat occurring compounded by the impact of such a threat on a given system (discussed above). See Ex. 2002, 24:3–25:5, 31:5–33:2 (Petitioner’s expert, Mr. Hurlbut, agreeing that “Risk = Likelihood x Impact”); Ex. 2009 ¶ 80; PO Sur-reply 9–10. Thus, we find unavailing Petitioner’s attempt to walk backwards from Keenan’s explicit disclosure of “risk” modeling into an anticipatory (explicit) disclosure of stored “threats” that may give rise to such risk. Viewing Keenan in the light agreed upon by the parties’ experts, where “risk” is a product of the “likelihood” of a threat occurring and the “impact” of such a threat on a given system, persuades us that although Keenan discloses “risk,” “types of risk,” and “risk ranking” (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 16:21–63), Keenan uses such “risk” as a given value without explicitly disclosing any underlying stored threats or use thereof. See Ex. 2009 ¶ 112 (“Keenan does not disclose a system for measuring risk. The risk for objects is determined before the objects are imported into the [Integrated Object Environment]. Keenan does not make that measurement.”). Indeed, in order to “store” “threats” in “one or more databases” as recited in claim 1, such “threats” must be identified (i.e., known) at some level of specificity to the system. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that Keenan explicitly discloses using “threats” or “storing” an identified “threat,” let alone storing such “threat” in a database along with its association with a particular threat model component, and even more so with a threat model component that itself is correlated with a third-party diagram component as recited in claim 1.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “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) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art also may be reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Neither party argues that the outcome of this case would differ based on our adoption of any particular definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Considering the subject matter of the ’366 patent, the background technical field, the prior art, and Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the skilled artisan, we apply the level of skill set forth above, which is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Hurlbut (Ex. 1003 ¶ 33).” slip op. at 10

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

    “43:21–61. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments (Pet. Reply 3–5), this “subset” feature shows that the “threats” stored in databases in claim 1 represent “potential events” that may or may not occur depending on the composition of a given system undergoing threat modeling—a system may implicate all stored threats, some of them, or even just one of them, leaving the remaining stored threats for use in preparing threat models for other systems. See PO Sur-reply 2–3 (discussing Figure 2 and arguing that “not every threat is necessarily included in the threat model”). We find the claim language itself supports interpreting “threats” as “potential events that, if they occur, can cause adverse effects to a target system.”” slip op. at 19

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “Claim 1 recites, in part, “the one or more mapping files correlating the threat model components with [“third party diagram components”].” Ex. 1001, 43:30–35. Generally, from the standpoint of what claim 1 requires, the parties’ views of “mapping file” are in alignment. Claim 1 plainly recites that a “mapping file” (where a “file” in the context of computer systems is data itself) correlates data A with data B, and when construed in the context of the subject claim language, correlates threat model components (i.e., data A) with third party diagram components (i.e., data B). We find that this interpretation of “mapping files” is sufficient to resolve the controversy between the parties. See Nidec Motor, 868 F.3d at 1017.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 10,713,366 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,713,366
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-01197 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not explain how the Jiang and Chen combination met limitations 1(d) and 1(e), or establish motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “algorithm on Chen’s plurality of clusters of processors, the Petition contends that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e) in disclosing assigning an initial score to each of the initial nodes of a prefix tree, then using these initial scores to determine, via pruning, whether to continue processing branches connected to the nodes. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–64); see id. at 31–44. We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain how Jiang’s pruning would be implemented in Chen’s multiple clusters of processors to generate an initial score for an audio sample, and to use the initial score “to determine whether to continue processing” as required by limitations 1(d) and 1(e). In contending that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e), the Petition quotes from Jiang’s description of its pruning technique: scores assigned to that node with the largest score on any of the other nodes corresponding to the frame being considered. If the score at a particular node is sufficiently low compared to the maximum score for other corresponding nodes in tree 77, it is assumed that the branches leading to the node under consideration (the node with the lower score) will not likely be part of the completed most likely phoneme sequence (i.e., the phonemes in that sequence will not likely be part of the final word recognized by the system). Thus, that branch is dropped (or pruned) from tree 77 and is no longer considered in further processing. Pet. 38–39 (quoting Ex. 1004, 8:52–64) (emphasis in original). Petitioner concludes that “[p]er Mr. Schmandt, Jiang thus teaches an initial score . . . used to determine whether to continue processing to determine a final score . . . . Dec., 90–91. As such, Jiang teaches claim 1(e).” Pet. 43–44. The Petition explains how Jiang’s pruning algorithm generates an initial score and uses the initial score to prune, or “determine whether to continue processing” as recited in claim 1, but does not explain how Jiang’s pruning algorithm would be implemented on Chen’s four clusters of processors shown in Figure 4, as required by the Petition. That is, the Petition does not explain how each of the processors in the four clusters of Chen, after generating a score for one of the initial nodes, would compare the score with the maximum score of all corresponding initial nodes in tree 77. In fact, the Petition, in relying on Jiang alone to teach this limitation, does not even contend that Jiang’s pruning technique would be performed by any of Chen’s clusters of processors, let alone explain how pruning would have been performed by Chen’s parallel processing computer system.” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s Reply theory was not set forth in the Petition, and is therefore untimely. PO Sur-Reply 4. We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition relies on Jiang alone to teach limitations 1(d) and 1(e), as discussed above. Petitioner’s contention that Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated across Chen’s processors for performing limitations 1(d) and 1(e) is not found in the Petition. Rather, as discussed above, the Petition describes how Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated for performing limitations 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c). Petitioner’s new theory in Reply is untimely. A “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) 73;2 see also Intelligent Bio- 2 Available at www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. 2016) (holding that the Board did not err in refusing the reply brief as improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) because petitioner relied on an entirely new rationale to explain why one of skill in the art would have combined the references at issue); 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b); Apple Inc. v. e-Watch, Inc., IPR2015-00412, Paper 50, 44 (PTAB May 6, 2016) (“‘Respond,’ in the context of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b), does not mean embark in a new direction with a new approach as compared to the position originally taken in the Petition. Accepting such belatedly presented new arguments would be unjust to the Patent Owner and we decline to do so.”). Petitioner contends that Mr. Schmandt explained during his deposition that, even though paragraphs 83–87 of his Declaration do not mention Chen, other parts of his Declaration explain how the combination of Jiang and Chen would have operated. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 2017, 44:2–11, 45:10– 46:10, 71:6–23, 73:12–17, 79:11–23, 81:8–22, 83:15–18, 86:25–87:23, 93:7–94:10, 94:16–23, 95:19–96:10, 97:8–17, 99:17–102:12). We disagree. During his deposition, Mr. Schmandt did not identify where his Declaration explains how the combination of Jiang and Chen teaches the limitations of claim 1(d) and 1(e). Neither Petitioner nor Mr. Schmandt identifies any paragraph of Mr. Schmandt’s Declaration that explains how the processors in Chen’s cluster of processors would have performed Jiang’s pruning technique in order to meet limitations 1(d) and 1(e). Rather, both the Petition and Mr. Schmandt’s Declaration rely on Jiang alone to teach limitations 1(d) and 1(e). See Pet. 38–44; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–91; Ex. 2017, 68:17–25, 79:11–23, 81:8–22, 83:10–18.” slip op. at 23

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

    “We disagree with Petitioner’s contention that to perform speech recognition, the processors in each cluster would not need to access the memories of the other clusters. See Reply 26. Petitioner’s contention is inconsistent with Petitioner’s contention that “[o]nce the cumulative probability score is calculated, inter-cluster processing of the results for each tree search would be communicated.” Reply 4; see id. at 16. Petitioner’s contention is inconsistent with the intrinsic evidence, which discloses that parallel implementation of a search algorithm for speech recognition requires a significant amount of communication and synchronization. Ex. 1001, 1:47–52. Petitioner’s contention is inconsistent with Mr. Schmandt’s testimony that if we’re going to be doing pruning based on thresholds, then we have to know the scores that we got on each of the trees, so I think that’s a safe assumption, that that’s in there. So when each of the processors has performed its task on its set of trees, it can produce a set of numbers, and looking at the numbers across all of the processors, across all of the results, we can choose a pruning threshold just like Jiang chooses a pruning threshold after it performs all these operations in serial as opposed to parallel. inconsistent with Jiang’s teaching that pruning is performed by comparing a score at a particular node to the maximum score for other corresponding nodes in the prefix tree. Ex. 1004, 8:55–64. We rely on Dr. Anderson’s testimony, that a parallel implementation of Jiang’s algorithm “requires extensive communication between computational components” and that “all four memories 104(a)-(d) would contain necessary information” to perform limitations 1(d) and 1(e), in finding that performing Jiang’s algorithm using Chen’s clusters of processors would have required the processors to access data in all of the cluster memories 104a-d in order to determine the scores of the corresponding nodes of the tree. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 29, 51. We disagree with Petitioner’s contention that performing Jiang’s algorithm using the processors of Chen would have resulted in the benefit of an increase in speed. Pet. 10. We credit Dr. Anderson’s testimony that Mr. Schmandt’s assumptions that the clustered processor and memory arrangement of Chen would have necessarily improved the speed and power of Jiang’s speech recognition are incorrect. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 35 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67, 74), 36 (citing Ex. 2021, 11). Petitioner contends that Dr. Anderson’s testimony is conclusory and that Patent Owner does not provide evidence other than Mathew I to support its contention that the combination would have a high synchronization overhead. Reply 20–21. We disagree, and find that Dr. Anderson’s testimony is sufficiently supported by evidence, including Jiang, Chen, and Mr. Schmandt’s Declaration. For example, Dr. Anderson testifies that the Viterbi algorithm compares most likely outcomes from the previous frame. Ex. 2020 ¶ 29 (citing Ex. 1004, 1:19–39, 2:1–26). Dr. Anderson testifies that to perform these comparisons requires extensive communication between computational components that can have a drastic impact on system performance. Id. ¶¶ 29, 43. Dr. Anderson testifies that as a result, performing Viterbi decoding when the information needed may be in a cluster that is not directly accessible, as in Chen, is not likely to be successful in a practical speech recognition system. Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 95; Ex. 1005, 9:10–39); see id. ¶ 43. Thus, Dr. Anderson further supports his testimony with citations to Jiang, Chen, and Mr. Schmandt’s Declaration. In addition, Mr. Schmandt does not support with objective evidence his testimony that using Chen’s clusters of processors would have increased the computing power for implementing Jiang’s speech recognition techniques to desirably result in improved processing speed and power. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67, 74. Although Mr. Schmandt mentions Hon (Ex. 1006), Tremblay (Ex. 1027), Erman (Ex. 1025), Wulf (Ex. 1024), Garde (Ex. 1028), and Deo (Ex. 1026) in his testimony, Mr. Schmandt does not persuasively explain how these background references would have taught a person of ordinary skill in the art that Chen’s parallel processing computer system, which includes an extended shared memory model and a distributed memory model, would have increased the speed of Jiang’s speech recognition algorithm over Jiang’s shared memory model.” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 10,971,140 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,971,140
• Apple Inc. / Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al. v. Zentian LimitedNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 11, 2024 · IPR2023-00037 · APJ Jeffrey S Smith · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–8 were not shown unpatentable because Petitioner did not establish that the asserted combinations taught the claimed limitations or provide a persuasive reason to combine Jiang and Chen.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “algorithm on Chen’s plurality of clusters of processors, the Petition contends that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e) in disclosing assigning an initial score to each of the initial nodes of a prefix tree, then using these initial scores to determine, via pruning, whether to continue processing branches connected to the nodes. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1004, 8–64); see id. at 31–44. We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not explain how Jiang’s pruning would be implemented in Chen’s multiple clusters of processors to generate an initial score for an audio sample, and to use the initial score “to determine whether to continue processing” as required by limitations 1(d) and 1(e). In contending that Jiang alone teaches limitations 1(d) and 1(e), the Petition quotes from Jiang’s description of its pruning technique:” slip op. at 20

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “in the Petition, and is therefore untimely. PO Sur-Reply 4. We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition relies on Jiang alone to teach limitations 1(d) and 1(e), as discussed above. Petitioner’s contention that Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated across Chen’s processors for performing limitations 1(d) and 1(e) is not found in the Petition. Rather, as discussed above, the Petition describes how Jiang’s algorithm would have been replicated for performing limitations 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c). Petitioner’s new theory in Reply is untimely. A “[p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) 73;2 see also Intelligent Bio-” slip op. at 23

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

    “inconsistent with Jiang’s teaching that pruning is performed by comparing a score at a particular node to the maximum score for other corresponding nodes in the prefix tree. Ex. 1004, 8:55–64. We rely on Dr. Anderson’s testimony, that a parallel implementation of Jiang’s algorithm “requires extensive communication between computational components” and that “all four memories 104(a)-(d) would contain necessary information” to perform limitations 1(d) and 1(e), in finding that performing Jiang’s algorithm using Chen’s clusters of processors would have required the processors to access data in all of the cluster memories 104a-d in order to determine the scores of the corresponding nodes of the tree. Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 29, 51.” slip op. at 32

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “We do not need to resolve this dispute, because even under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill, Petitioner has not shown that the challenged claims are unpatentable. We apply Petitioner’s definition that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a master’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with two years of experience in the field of speech recognition, or a bachelor’s degree in the same fields with four years of experience in the field of speech recognition, and that additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 9

  Patent outcomesUS 10,971,140 not shown unpatentable
  § 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,971,140
• Netflix, Inc. v. Divx, LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 22, 2024 · IPR2020-00558 · APJ Iftikhar Ahmed · IPR · Remand

  The majority determined claims 1–24 were not shown unpatentable over Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst; the dissent would have found them obvious.

  RulingsRemand decision

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

    “We determine Patent Owner’s reading of the claim limitation is the better one. The limitation begins with the verb “locating,” and it therefore makes sense that the clause would recite what is located (i.e., encryption information) and where it is located (i.e., within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video). In other words, it is reasonable that the second and third clauses of the limitation both modify the first clause (for example, as could perhaps be expressed through the use of commas as “locating encryption information, that identifies encrypted portions of frames of video, within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video”).10 On the other hand, Petitioner’s reading of the limitation, 10 In general, we recognize that the use of commas to set off phrases in claim drafting is not consistent. We included commas above to illustrate Patent Owner’s understanding of the claim limitation. allowing only the second clause to modify the first, while not unreasonable, makes less sense. That is, the encrypted information identifies the encrypted portions of frames, which in turn are within the requested portions of the selected stream of protected video. Reading the claim in its entirety, the encrypted portions of frames would be understood to be located within the requested portions of the stream; it does not seem necessary for the claim to expressly recite that aspect. For example, the very next limitation— limitation [m] of claim 1—refers to “each encrypted portion of the frames of video” but does not expressly recite “within the requested portions of the selected stream.” Ex. 1001, 27:58–60. Thus, when limitation [l] recites “within the requested portions of the selected stream,” it seems more likely that the clause refers to where that encrypted information is located rather than simply to indicate the obvious location of the encrypted portion of the frames of video. We therefore view Patent Owner’s reading of the claim language as the better one.” slip op. at 13

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

    “I am persuaded that the Petition demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a motivation to combine Chen, Lindahl, and Hurst, as asserted by Petitioner. As the Federal Circuit found, the Petition pointed to and relied upon the portions in Chen describing pre-Chen art, without scalability or FEC features that were part of what Chen describes as aspects of its own inventive system. Netflix, slip op. at 9–10 (citing Pet. 17– 19, 69–70). I agree with Petitioner that “Chen-924 teaches several embodiments that adaptively stream alternative representations of a video using partially encrypted container files.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1010, 14:41– 15:60). I determine that Chen-924 provides support for the rationale provided in the Petition, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen and Lindahl in view of the disclosure of Chen-924. As discussed above, the Petition does not rely solely on privacy concerns and improvements to efficiency as its motivation to combine the references. See Pet. 18–19 (specifying piracy concerns, improvements to the efficiency of adaptive streaming, optimization of the balance between bitrate and bandwidth, and improvements to the end-user experience with fast startup and seek). With respect to whether one of ordinary skill in the art would have” slip op. at 52

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for petitioner

    “I agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, specifically pages 1–7, attempt to address aspects of claim 1 for the first time on remand. I also agree that Patent Owner’s arguments attempt to recharacterize limitations [j] and [k] to raise issues that Patent Owner did not raise previously, in contravention of our Order that issues raised needed support from “where those issues were raised in previous briefings by the parties.” Paper 56, 2. I have addressed whether scalability and FEC are integral to how Chen operates above, as well as whether the Petition relies on those aspects, supra. The questions about how Chen operates and what portions of Chen are asserted in the ground of unpatentability were previously raised, but now are being considered or reconsidered, based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. In Patent Owner’s Remand Brief, pages 1–7, the citations to argument previously raised do not support the arguments now presented by Patent Owner on remand. As such, I determine Patent Owner’s new arguments fall outside the scope of remand, and I dismiss these arguments seeking to distinguish limitations [j] and [k] from the cited prior art combination.24” slip op. at 62

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedMixed

    “7 Patent Owner’s Brief on Remand recognizes that there are two arguments Patent Owner raised in its Patent Owner Response that were not addressed in the Final Written Decision. See PO Remand Br. 1 (citing PO Resp. 24–37 (the construction of “locating encrypted information . . . within requested portions”), 38–58 (referring to Patent Owner’s “common keys” argument)). 8 The Final Decision also addressed Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 42). See Final Dec. 28–37 (granting-in-part, denying-in-part, and dismissing-in-part Petitioner’s Motion). Our determinations on that Motion were part of Petitioner’s appeal to the Federal Circuit. See Paper 52. Because the Federal Circuit did not address this aspect of the Final Written Decision and the Federal Circuit’s decision does not impact our previous rulings on the Motion, we maintain those rulings here. Additionally, on remand, Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions, which we held in abeyance until the parties’ briefing on remand was complete. See Ex. 3003, 1. Petitioner requests sanctions because of the impropriety of Patent Owner’s remand brief, including new claim construction arguments for limitations [1j] and [1k], and prejudice to Petitioner. Id. at 3, 5. Although we reserved further consideration of Petitioner’s request, we expanded both the time and pages allowed for Petitioner’s responsive brief, and also allowed Petitioner to address any related issues in its responsive brief. Id. at 1. Having considered the parties’ briefing on remand, and given that we do not reach the claim construction arguments that Petitioner objected to in its request for authorization to file a motion for sanctions, we deny Petitioner’s request.” slip op. at 5

  Patent outcomesUS 10,225,588 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,225,588
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 26, 2024 · IPR2022-01222 · APJ Hyun J Jung · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish a distinct server and network switch box in the asserted combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal and does not propose its own level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art). Based on the full record, we maintain and affirm that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a working knowledge of the wireless communication arts pertinent to the ’863 patent” and “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent” and that “[l]ack of work experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 9–10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner argues that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” recited by claim 1 “should be understood to recite that a server is ‘configured with a controller’ and that it is the server that is ‘in communication with a plurality of network devices.’” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 12:1–4; Ex. 1003 ¶ 54). We preliminarily adopted Petitioner’s understanding of the phrase. Inst. Dec. 9. “Patent Owner does not concede that Petitioner’s construction [of a ‘server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of under any construction so it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve this IPR.” PO Resp. 14 n.1. Based on the full record, we determine that “said server configured with a controller in communication with a plurality of network devices” does not require express interpretation to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “We find that the cited portions of Ahopelto describe a GRPS GSN or GGSN connects to data networks, such as an inter-operator backbone IP network, X.25 network, and IP network. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, Fig. 1. Based on the portions relied upon by Petitioner, we find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that its GGSN is “a server” and a separate and distinct “network switch box.” Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78 (“Ahopelto does not describe any details about a GGSN’s hardware/software”). We also find that Ahopelto does not describe expressly that a GGSN has separate and distinct functionalities (1) for receiving a packet and determining the protocol of the encapsulated packet is separate and (2) for connecting to data networks. Ex. 1005, code (57), 6:16–19, 7:35–42, 8:40–41, 10:22–23, 10:48–50, 10:56–59; Ex. 1003 ¶ 78; Ex. 2008 ¶ 39 (“Ahopelto never mentions the term ‘server functionality’ or the term ‘routing functionality.’”).” slip op. at 25

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner’s declarant also opines that the asserted server functionality includes controlling where a packet is routed. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 77 (“A [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have recognized that Ahopelto’s GGSN exercises control over how a packet is routed, based on the protocol type (the ‘server functionality’ herein for simplicity of reference).”), ¶ 78 (“[T]he GGSN’s server functionality would exercise the disclosed control (the platform implementing the GGSN).”); Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4 (Petitioner’s declarant answering “Yes” and “Routing is about where to send a packet,” in response to whether it was correct that “deciding where to send a packet is an essential part of routing”). According to Petitioner’s declarant, the asserted server functionality includes, or overlaps with, aspects of a “GGSN routing process.” Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 77, 78; Ex. 1013, 14:1– 3; Ex. 2005, 46:22–47:4. Petitioner’s testimonial evidence does not show a clear distinction between the asserted server and routing functionalities to support that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a server functionality separate and distinct from a routing functionality in Ahopelto’s GGSN.” slip op. at 26

  Patent outcomesUS 8,982,863 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,982,863
• Kioxia Corporation / Kioxia America, Inc. v. Viasat, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 20, 2023 · IPR2022-01067 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 8, 10–19, and 23–25 were not shown unpatentable because the cited art did not disclose the claimed decoding and forwarding functions, and the proposed modifications were not adequately supported.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “similar, and we adopt parts of each party’s description of a POSITA’s education and experience. We agree with Patent Owner that computer engineering and computer science are relevant fields of study. PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which describes systems, devices, methods, and software for forward error correction for a flash memory system, which may be integrated with a computer, server, or other computing device. Ex. 1001, 3:23–30. Although Dr. Koralek testifies that an undergraduate education would not have been sufficient for a person to acquire ordinary skill in the art relating the ’700 Patent (Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 7–9), that testimony does not adequately account for the knowledge relating to error correction a person could acquire through practical experience. For this reason, we agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Bagherzadeh that a bachelor of science is the appropriate level of education. PO Resp. 3; Ex. 2022 ¶ 31. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a POSITA’s experience would have been limited to “hardware implementation.” PO Resp. 3. Our finding is supported by the ’700 Patent, which states that “embodiments may be implemented by hardware, software, firmware, middleware, microcode, hardware description languages, or any combination thereof.” Ex. 1001, 10:26–28. For these reasons, we find that a POSITA would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of academic or industry experience in the design, development, or research of error correction in memory devices.” slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner

    “mentioned in the Specification. In each instance, buffering is disclosed along with de-interleaving and decoding as actions performed by a decoder module or sub-module. The Specification’s disclosure that a decoder module can buffer data does not mean that buffering alone can constitute decoding. Nowhere does the Specification define “decode” to mean just “buffer.” The Specification’s use of the disjunctive, “or,” to connect these words (Ex. 1001, 6:11–14) is not enough to redefine the word “decode” to encompass buffering alone. Petitioner agrees that “[t]he ’700 Patent does not define the word ‘decode.’” Pet. Reply 2. “Absent lexicography or disavowal, we do not depart from the plain meaning of the claims.” Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). “The standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are ‘exacting.’” Id. (quoting GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In this case, defining “decode” to encompass mere buffering would be a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term as understood by a POSITA. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Koralek, agrees that, “aside from the ’700 patent, what a person of ordinary skill would understand decode to mean, it would not be just buffering. Decoding might include buffering, but buffering by itself would not be considered decoding to a person of ordinary skill.” Ex. 2023, 73:14–20. As Petitioner recognizes, “it is undisputed that ‘decoding’ is the opposite of ‘encoding.’” Pet. Reply 7 (citing Ex. 1019, 56:5–11); see also PO Resp. 7 (“The plain meaning of ‘decode’ implies undoing or reversing some prior encoding.”). This undisputed meaning is supported by the expert testimony, as well as dictionary definitions provided” slip op. at 14

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “ECC bits on a page-level rather than by sector was known before the ’700 Patent” and relies on Dr. Koralek’s opinion that “page-level encoding would have been an obvious implementation in view of Lee’s teachings.” Pet. Reply 4; Ex. 1024 ¶ 45. Petitioner’s contention presents a new theory of unpatentability based on new evidence11 that exceeds the proper scope of a reply brief under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). For that reason, we need not consider it.12 Petitioner’s contention is not persuasive in any event. The challenge before us is anticipation, not obviousness. Petitioner’s new theory is not enough to show that Lee “must necessarily” distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data, as asserted in the Petition (Pet. 22) and required by our claim construction. 11 The new evidence includes Exhibit 1021 and paragraphs 45 to 47 of Dr. Koralek’s supplemental testimony, Exhibit 1024. 12 Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, 69 F.4th 1356, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (stating “the Board acts within its discretion when it declines under section 42.23(b) to consider a new theory of unpatentability raised for the first time in reply” and holding that petitioner’s reply argument that a claim limitation would have been an obvious modification was a “meaningfully distinct contention” from the petition’s argument that the limitation was taught by the reference and that the new theory was not within the scope of a proper reply); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming Board’s decision not to consider an argument made on reply because in the original petition the challenger argued only that a reference disclosed a limitation, while in the reply the challenger argued that a relevant artisan would have considered it obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the limitation).” slip op. at 23

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “As discussed above, we construe the phrase, “decode the received encoded data,” to mean “distinguish error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Lee’s page buffer 504 performs this function. Pet. 22. Petitioner identifies Lee’s page buffer 504 as the “decoding module” of claim 1 (Pet. 20–21), but does not show that page buffer 504 decodes the received encoded data by distinguishing error correction bits from information bits in the received encoded data.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 8,615,700 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,615,700
• Apple Inc. v. Rfcyber Corp.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 18, 2023 · IPR2022-00412 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 were not shown unpatentable because the Dua, GlobalPlatform, and Philips combination did not establish the claimed emulator personalization.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “On the full record before us, we agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “ordinary skill in the art should have some level of experience relating to mobile payment technology. For example, the title of the ’787 patent, “Method and Apparatus for Conducting E-commerce and M-commerce,” provides a strong indication that mobile payments are a key aspect of the disclosed invention. See Ex. 1001, code (54). The ’787 patent describes its technical field as: “The present invention is generally related to commerce over networks. Particularly, the present invention is related to electronic purses that can be advantageously used in portable devices configured for both electronic commerce (a.k.a., e-commerce) and mobile commerce (a.k.a., m-commerce),” which reinforces that mobile payment technology is a key aspect. See id. at 1:17–21. In addition, we credit Mr. Smith’s uncontroverted testimony that mobile payment experience is required, which we find persuasive and supported by evidence. See Ex. 1042 ¶¶ 4–10. On the other hand, we agree with Patent Owner that network security is an important aspect of the ’787 patent’s invention. But to the extent that Patent Owner is asserting that mobile payment technology and computer or network security are distinct concepts such that the proper level of ordinary skill would include experience in one or the other but not both, we disagree. Rather, we view the ’787 patent as relating to methods and apparatuses for 1:17–21) and describing security as being an aspect of the commerce (see id. at code (57) (“[A] mechanism is provided to enable a portable device to conduct transactions over an open network with a payment server without compromising security.”), 2:16–19 (“During a transaction, the security keys are used to establish a secured channel between an embedded e-purse and an SAM (Security Authentication Module) or backend server.”)). For the above reasons, we find Petitioner’s contentions on this issue more persuasive on the full record before us. In order to avoid any doubt that we consider computer or network security to be an element of mobile payment technology, we determine for the purposes of this Decision that one of ordinary skill in the art would have at least a Bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering or an equivalent, and one year of professional experience relating to mobile payment technology, including computer or network security. In addition, a lack of professional experience could be remedied by additional education, and vice versa. Regarding Petitioner’s assertion that Mr. Gomez’s testimony should be given little to no weight, Patent Owner argues that Mr. Gomez is well qualified under both proposed levels of ordinary skill. Sur-reply 4–5. During the hearing, Petitioner modified its position somewhat, arguing that Mr. Gomez’s “testimony should be accorded little to no weight, particularly where he weighs in on issues specific to financial transactions and smart cards.” Tr. 8:15–18 (emphasis added). Petitioner stated further that “[w]e’re simply asking the Board to take into the account each individual expert’s background knowledge on a per issue basis.” Id. at 59:26–60:2. Based on the full record, we disagree that all of Mr. Gomez’s testimony” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner contends that all claim terms, except “emulator” and “midlet,” should have their plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 12. As to the claim terms “emulator” and “midlet,” Petitioner contends that the ’787 patent expressly defines those terms “so those definitions are controlling.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 4:47–50, 5:20–22). Patent Owner argues that “claim construction is not required to resolve any issues” in this proceeding. PO Resp. 9. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim term to resolve the parties’ disputes because doing so would have no effect on the analysis below. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent” slip op. at 14

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

  Patent outcomesUS 9,189,787 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,189,787

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.