• Samsung Display Co., Ltd. v. Pictiva Displays International Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 22, 2026 · IPR2024-01093 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable: claims 1–13 and 15–16 on anticipation and obviousness grounds, and claim 14 on obviousness over Choulis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’164 patent would have had a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, physics, or a comparable field of study, and at least three years of research or industrial experience with organic optoelectronic light-emitting devices. An individual with additional education could have less research or industrial experience and vice versa. Pet. 12. Patent Owner repeatedly refers to “a POSITA” without addressing the definition of that term or contesting Petitioner’s proposed definition. See Resp. 1, 2 n.1, 3, 8, 9, 15–21, 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44–49, 51–57, 61, 62 (bare references to “a POSITA”). Neither party indicates that the ultimate result on patentability would change depending on the definition selected. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition, which is not contested, because it is consistent with the disclosures of the asserted prior art. See Ex. 1004, (code 57); Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1008, code (57); Ex. 1009, code (57) (abstracts of the references asserted in the patentability challenges).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “because no information raised during the trial phase of this review changes the calculus: First and foremost, the plain terms of claim 1 include no language from which we reasonably can impose limits on the phrase “matrix material” as urged by Patent Owner. In addition, the specification includes no special definition of that phrase that supports importing Patent Owner’s proposed narrowing limitation into the claim. Furthermore, we are directed to no disclaimer of claim scope during patent prosecution that would support Patent Owner’s twice-rejected argument that the phrase “matrix material” in claim 1 excludes embedded dopants and dispersed agglomerations. And the extrinsic evidence advanced by Patent Owner during this review is ineffective to override the clear interpretation of “matrix material” that is established by the intrinsic evidence. Reply 1–7.10” slip op. at 8

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

    “We find that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. We agree with Petitioner, in that regard, that Choulis explicitly teaches “using spin-coating as a method for depositing materials, which involves a simultaneous application process” as required by claim 13. Reply 16 (citing Pet. 40–41; Ex. 1044 ¶ 45).16 We 15 Petitioner raises Djobo as a background reference supporting that Choulis anticipates deposition of PVK by evaporation. Pet. 41. Patent Owner counters that Djobo, to the contrary, shows that Choulis does not teach deposition of PVK by evaporation. Resp. 48. In other words, both parties cite Djobo in connection with the ground based on anticipation by Choulis. Against that backdrop, we determine that Patent Owner waives any argument that Petitioner improperly cites Djobo as a background reference in support of the anticipation challenge, which is based on Choulis alone. Resp. 48 (nowhere asserting that the challenge is deficient on that basis). That waiver arises because no argument, in that regard, is raised in Patent Owner’s Response see Inst. Dec. 34 (“The Board shall deemed waived any issue not raised by Patent Owner in a timely response to the Petition . . . .”). 16 Patent Owner’s statement that “spin coating tends to cause phase separation” is not developed adequately on this record and, therefore, is further agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner “has not contested this point.” Resp. 48. “Therefore, there is no genuine dispute regarding the unpatentability of claim 13,” although Patent Owner raises “arguments concerning evaporation, which is a distinct process from spin-coating” relevant to the additional limitations of claim 14. Reply 16. We determine that Petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 13. Patent Owner, however, has the better position on whether Choulis anticipates claim 14, which “includes the requirement of applying matrix materials via evaporation coating.” Reply 16. Petitioner seems to abandon that challenge in the Reply by raising arguments that appear, on this record, to bear exclusively on whether the subject matter of claim 14 would have been obvious over Choulis.17 Id. at 16–17. Those arguments are insufficient to counter Patent Owner’s reasons why Choulis does not anticipate the “evaporation coating” limitation of claim 14. Compare id., with Resp. 48. On this record, therefore, we determine that Petitioner does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Choulis anticipates claim 14. unpersuasive to persuade us “that Choulis does not have three matrix materials.” Sur-reply 15. That argument runs counter to Choulis’s explicit, intrinsic disclosures, which illustrate (Ex. 1004, Fig. 4) and describe (id. ¶ 30) an organic light emitting layer composed of three matrix materials. See Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1004, Fig. 4, ¶ 30); see also Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 85–88 (persuasive declaration testimony of Dr. Holmes, cited at Pet. 24–25). 17 There is some confusion on this point, given that both parties sometimes collapse, into a single argument, whether Choulis anticipates or renders obvious claim 1. Compare Resp. 48, with Reply 16–17.” slip op. at 35

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

    “On this record, therefore, we determine that Choulis, at minimum, suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized PMMA as a suitable alternative to PVK in Choulis’s Figure 4 embodiment, notwithstanding any differences raised by Patent Owner. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. Patent Owner’s argument that no disclosure in Choulis suggests that an ordinarily skilled artisan “would have found it desirable to use PMMA in place of PVK in Choulis’s devices” misses the mark, where Choulis includes both PMMA and PVK in lists of materials suitable for use as host or matrix materials. Resp. 38; Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. “Our caselaw is clear. It’s not necessary to show that a combination is ‘the best option, only that it is a suitable option.’” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Even if Choulis does not expressly disclose substituting PMMA for PVK in the Figure 4 embodiment, “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make that substitution.” Reply 10 (citing Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 100; Ex. 1044 ¶ 23)). The suggestion for that substitution is set forth unambiguously in Choulis’s listing of both “PVK” and “PMMA” as materials suitable for use as a first “host” material in Choulis’s organic functional layer; that is, “the light emitting layer” that is “described above” in Figure 4. Ex. 1004 ¶ 44. ii. Alternative Reasoning for Replacing PVK with PMMA Patent Owner counterargues that using PPMA in place of PVK would have been understood to “upset the hole and electron balance,” as well as “affect hole-charge recombination,” and “degrade the performance of the resulting OLED system.” Resp. 37. Petitioner responds with evidence that “it would have been a routine task for” an ordinarily skilled artisan “to optimize the composition of each component within the light-emitting layer to achieve the desired charge balance.” Reply 11 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 24). Petitioner’s response brings to light a second reason why an ordinarily” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 8,723,164 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,723,164
• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01157 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9 are unpatentable: the Board found them obvious over Schaffer with Hartley or Eller, though Schaffer alone did not anticipate and Hartley with Eller did not show claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 9.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “background for the POSA, but we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s proposed POSA definition lacks some specificity concerning the POSA’s work experience. That definition, if interpreted generically, could mean that a person qualifies as a POSA if they had, for example, a B.S. in mechanical engineering and only two years of experience designing any type of product in any field. That is too broad. We find that a POSA would have had the agreed-upon educational credentials—an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline. Ex. 1003 ¶ 35; Ex. 2008 ¶ 68. We also find that a POSA would have had 2–4 years of design or engineering experience related to products in the field of the invention, which involves endovascular devices and the surgical procedures that use such devices. Ex. 1001, 1:21–57 (background of the invention). Such devices include, but are not necessarily limited to, hemostasis valves and catheters for minimally-invasive vascular surgeries. Id. And, consistent with the testimony of the parties’ experts, the POSA need not have had firsthand experience designing hemostasis valves. See, e.g., Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 72:11–73:7 (testifying direct experience “designing”” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Schaffer’s valve to include a single flexible string or wire that replaces the two U-shaped actuating members would have been seen by the POSA as potentially advantageous—giving further reason for the POSA to have made that change. Pet. 35–36. We credit Mr. Thornton’s testimony that a POSA would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members may into the lumen. Ex. 1003 ¶ 81. On the other hand, a POSA would have recognized that a single flexible string or wire that is looped completely around the exterior of the seal module/lumen would provide more uniform constriction and compression around the outer diameter of some commonlyused tools and including tools with diverse shapes and sizes. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 80–88, 93–100. We observed this same reason for modifying the art at institution and, after considering the full trial record, our view has not changed. Inst. Dec. 37 (preliminarily finding that a POSA would have considered Hartley’s string or Eller’s wire “as providing expected benefits insofar as such a filament may more precisely and uniformly constrict a lumen against inserted tools of different sizes and shapes”). Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Zalesky, does not disagree that a flexible string or wire would have carried this advantage. Ex. 2008 ¶ 75 (testifying a “filament changes shape dynamically, allowing for better adaptability to the contours of the valve lumen as it is constricted”);21 Ex. 1015 (Zalesky Tr.), 86:19–87:4 (testifying that POSAs in 2017 would have recognized that the “cinching” effect provided by a filament would have been more effective for large-bore catheters based on “simple mechanical engineering and physics”). And, at the oral hearing, Patent Owner agreed that using Hartley’s string in Schaffer would help eliminate potential fluid gaps; but Patent Owner qualified its answer that such a benefit would allegedly only have arisen if “the highly-compliant” seal member material in Schaffer was removed,” slip op. at 53

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

    “that issue, after considering the full record developed through trial, we agree with Patent Owner that a “filament” as claimed is flexible. On balance, the evidence supports Patent Owner’s interpretation. Patent Owner cites the claim language, including the recitation that “the filament circumferentially constricts the lumen to create a seal,” which Dr. Zalesky opines a POSA would have understood as implying a flexible structure. PO Resp. 25–26; Ex. 2008 ¶¶ 71–76 (testifying, inter alia, that “[t]o ‘circumferentially constrict,’ the filament must be flexible and extend circumferentially about the lumen” such that “the filament will adapt to the shape of the lumen as the lumen is constricted and thus ‘circumferentially constrict’ the lumen as recited in Claim 1”).12 The Specification also describes the filament as being selectively “tightened” and “loosened” about the elongate member. Ex. 1001, 9:37–40, 9:55–59 (teaching “the filament 150 is tightened” when the actuator is released and “the filament 150 is loosened” when the actuator is pressed to open the valve)). Dr. Zalesky opines that a POSA would have understood the patent’s description of” slip op. at 18

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

    “challenge fails on this record whether the clearer prosecution drawings in Exhibit 1008 are considered in the analysis of anticipation by Schaffer, or not. Whether those prosecution drawings are considered “extrinsic evidence” to Schaffer (as argued by Patent Owner) or publicly-available “intrinsic evidence” with respect to Schaffer (as Petitioner argues) does not change our Decision on Ground 1. Opp. 10–11; Mot. Reply, 3–5. Patent Owner’s motion is, therefore, moot as to Ground 1.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 11,697,011 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,697,011
• Avation Medical, Inc. v. Emkinetics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 7, 2026 · PGR2024-00043 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–39 are unpatentable under Grounds 1–10; Petitioner did not prove lack of enablement under Ground 11, and Patent Owner’s motion to exclude was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST Petitioner identifies Avation Medical, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Pet. x. Patent Owner identifies EMKinetics, Inc. as the real party-in-interest. Paper 5, 1; Paper 6, 1. Neither party contests the other’s assertions on this. C.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “A POSA at the time of the claimed invention would have had an undergraduate degree in the field of biomedical engineering or a related discipline, such as electrical engineering, and at least two years of experience in the design and/or analysis of biomedical devices. Additional work experience could substitute for a formal degree and vice versa. Ex.1003, ¶21. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1003). Patent Owner does not contest this proposed definition or offer an alternative. See generally Resp. We accept and use Petitioner’s uncontested definition of the ordinarily skilled artisan, which appears to comport with the level of skill in the art reflected in the prior art of record and the ’943 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself [may]” slip op. at 19

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

    “same claim construction standard that is used to construe patent claims in a civil action in federal district court. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). In construing claims, district courts and the Board here, by default, give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Petitioner states that, “no terms require construction for purposes of this Petition.” Pet. 21. Patent Owner presents no express position on claim construction. See generally Resp. We do not expressly construe any claim terms. E.” slip op. at 20

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedReference is prior artDecided for petitioner

    “question, based on factual findings. VidStream, 981 F.3d at 1063–64. Moreover, public accessibility is the touchstone in determining whether a reference is a printed publication and such depends on whether the reference was available to interested, ordinarily skilled persons exercising reasonable diligence, which is determined on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 1065. Particularly pertinent here is that “[w]hen there is an established publisher there is a presumption of public accessibility as of the publication date.” Id. Hulu (which cites VidStream on this issue) concerned, inter alia, whether certain asserted references were shown to be publicly available and could be considered as prior art. Hulu, 2021 WL 487622. Hulu holds that, although testimonial evidence is one way to prove public accessibility, there are also a variety of hallmarks of publication and other evidence that may be considered as a totality of the evidence to determine if an asserted reference was publicly accessible and prior art. Id. at *10–13, 21. Facts to be considered in analyzing the issue, other than testimonial evidence, include, for example, whether there is an established publisher, a copyright date/notice, other publication-related dates (impression, printing, etc.), an ISBN number, citations to the reference before (and to a lesser degree, after) the priority date at issue corroborating its availability and/or that the publisher was established, and whether the reference’s “purpose of publishing . . . was ‘dialogue with an intended audience.’” Id. at *10–21 (citing Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021)).” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,844,943 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,844,943
• Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 2, 2026 · IPR2024-01087 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–13, 15–17, 19, 20, 23–26, 29, 32–35, 37, 38, and 40–42 are unpatentable under §103; the remaining challenged claims were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The difference between the parties’ positions is solely that Petitioner includes “human-computer interaction” as a relevant degree and “human computer interfaces” as relevant working experience. We need not resolve that difference, because no matter which stated level of ordinary skill is applied, all of our findings and conclusions would be the same and because neither party asserts the other party’s expert is not qualified as an expert. In the Decision on Institution, we adopted Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8. We continue to adopt Petitioner’s stated level of ordinary skill in the art.9 C.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Only those claim terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Petitioner asserts that “no claim terms need be construed to resolve issues of controversy in the present Petition.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner agrees that “no formal constructions of any claim terms are necessary.” PO Resp. 7. We agree with the parties that no express construction of any claim term is necessary.” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “First, we find that Hackborn clearly discloses an embodiment in which swiping the finger, not just mere contact without motion (i.e., a tap), moves the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Hackborn explicitly states: “In the example shown in FIG. 1, a user is swiping her finger across a touch-sensitive display screen of the computing device. In response, the blades of grass 105 displayed in the area of the screen swiped by the user are caused to bend or sway as if contacted by the user’s finger during the swipe.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 28. Because this description expressly refers to “swiping” or moving the finger “across” the display screen, it does not encompass a mere tap, or contact by the user that does not move on the display screen. If a single-tap-contact embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper is disclosed, it would be in an embodiment different from the swiping embodiment. Here, Petitioner is relying only on the swiping embodiment for moving the blades of grass in the background wallpaper. Thus, we disagree with Patent Owner that Hackborn discloses no need to distinguish a tap from a swipe. We find that in the swipe embodiment, it is important to distinguish a tap from a swipe, and thus there is reason, as Petitioner contends, for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Westerman for implementation details on how to make such a distinction. Specifically, for recognizing a swipe from a tap, Westerman describes determining whether the finger path displacement exceeds a predetermined threshold (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 61), and examining the initial velocity of the contact at contact’s touchdown (Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 62). As for Patent Owner’s noting that in several instances Hackborn generally refers to a user’s finger contacting items on the wallpaper, that does not undermine Petitioner’s positions, because in the “swipe” embodiment, the referenced contact would be a swipe, and not a single tap without any motion of the finger.” slip op. at 17

  • Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner

    “Pet. 39. This reasoning is unpersuasive. The reference in claims 17, 37, and 38 to “the at least some of the plurality of images” identifies the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 1 on which claim 17 depends, and the at least some of the plurality of images first recited in claim 23 on which claims 37 and 38 depend. According to independent claims 1 and 23, however, the displaying in sequence of the at least some of the plurality of images must be based in part on the magnitude of the first contact. Pet. vii–vii, xiv. The social networking posts and images contained therein images, identified by Petitioner as being displayed in sequence by automatically moving one-by-one, have not been shown by Petitioner as being displayed based in part of the magnitude of the user contact, as Patent Owner correctly notes. PO Resp. 32–35. In its Reply, Petitioner attempts to change its reasoning for claims 17, 37, and 38 by shifting to rely on the background wallpaper of grass swaying in response to user swiping. Reply 13–14. This shift in reliance is a belated new argument and not entitled to consideration. We decline to consider it. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 17, 37, and 38 would have been obvious over Hackborn and Westerman. E.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 10,656,755 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,656,755
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,598,960
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · 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 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.Rehearing denied
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2025-00434 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Rehearing

  The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving institution denied because Shen and Soldano did not establish a reasonable likelihood of anticipating claims 1–7.

  RulingsRehearing decision

  • RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied

    “When rehearing a decision on petition, the Board will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be determined if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Arnold P’ship v. Dudas, 362 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The party challenging the decision has the burden of showing the decision should be modified, and the request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in its papers. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).” slip op. at 2

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

    “II. ANALYSIS In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing that either Shen or Soldano anticipated claims 1–7. Dec. 18, 26. Petitioner argues that we should institute review for three reasons. First, Petitioner argues that we abused our discretion by (a) “refusing” to interpret the scope of the claimed” slip op. at 2

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

    “Owner’s interpretation of “carrier” as meaning “one or more components for supporting ROSA components such as an AWG.” Dec. 9 (quoting Pet. 11). For our analysis of Petitioner’s challenges, we referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as Petitioner’s second alternative construction. Id. We also noted that Petitioner appeared to dispute Patent Owner’s interpretation when it argued that “carrier” should mean “a ceramic or silicon substrate.” Id. (quoting Pet. 10). We referred to this interpretation of “carrier” as the first alternative construction. Id. Rather than resolve this apparent dispute about the meaning of “carrier,” we found that both of Petitioner’s anticipation challenges failed under both interpretations of “carrier.” Id. at 10–26. Because we found that Petitioner had failed to carry its burden regardless of which interpretation of “carrier” applied, we found it unnecessary to resolve the dispute over that interpretation. Id. at 9–10. For the reasons expressed in Parts II.B–C below, we maintain our conclusion that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of proving that either Shen or Soldano anticipates any claim under either interpretation of “carrier.” Accordingly, Petitioner fails to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in our alleged “refusal” to interpret “carrier.”” slip op. at 3

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

    “Reh’g Req. 14. We cannot weigh Petitioner’s arguments based on its assertions about “caselaw” because Petitioner cited no cases to support its arguments. See id. Nevertheless, we infer that Petitioner intends its statements of “caselaw” to refer to the requirements to make out a case for anticipation. If so, Petitioner demonstrably miscasts what appear to be the legal principles for proving anticipation. As stated in our Decision: “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).” Dec. 7. Making a showing that a prior art reference anticipates a patent claim thus necessarily requires proof that a single reference “expressly or inherently” describes every element of that claim and with all elements being arranged in the reference as they are in the” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 10,379,301
• Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 19, 2025 · IPR2024-00960 · APJ Kristen L Droesch · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable over Stubler under §§ 102 and 103; claims 2–4 and 9–11 are also unpatentable over Stubler and Wang under § 103.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “could substitute for work experience.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 49). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. generally. Based on our review of the record, we find that Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the level of skill reflected in the prior art references of record. See Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (listing the type of problems encountered in the art, prior art solutions to those problems, and the sophistication of the technology as factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art); see also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown”). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We do not agree with Patent Owner’s proposed construction that qualifies the words “similar to the object” with “sufficiently similar to identify the specific object,” based on the disclosures of the ’807 Patent Specification. We acknowledge the ’807 Patent Specification discloses the words “the specific object” in the context of acknowledging or detecting the specific object in the image with the object acknowledgement section and retrieving an image from the database that contains the specific object after keywords are added to the image. See Ex. 1001, 4:18–24, 5:54–6:3, 7:28–31. Similarly, the Specification discloses the term “specific person” in the context of retrieving an image from the database that contains the specific person after keywords are added to the image. See Ex. 1001, 4:48–54. We further acknowledge that the Specification discloses a face image similarity determining section to determine if a face image is similar to a face image stored in the database. Ex. 1001, 4:30–34, 4:40–44, 8:60–67, 9:18–22, 10:19–22, 11:58–67. The Specification further includes a passage, cited by Patent Owner, that discloses “if it is determined that the face image coincides to the face image which is contained previously [in a database] or is very similar to the face image which is contained previously, the information for such a human is proposed so as to expedite the user to confirm.” Ex. 1001, 9:18–22; see PO Resp. 16, 17, 19. Finally, we also acknowledge that the Specification further discloses an example of a database record that includes keywords, such as “Jiro” and “second eldest brother” for a human, and further discloses retrieving items from the database with the keyword “Jiro.” See Ex. 1001, 9:47–54, 10:41–58, Figs. 6, 9. however, do not rise to the level of disclaimer or a disavowal of the full scope of the claim term “similar to the object of the image previously contained in the database.” For example, Patent Owner does not direct us to any explicit statements or disclosures in the ’807 patent Specification that indicate a clear intention to limit “similar to the object” to “sufficiently similar to identify the specific object” using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction. See Hill–Rom Servs., 755 F.3d at 1372; Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367–68; Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906. Therefore, absent disclaimer or disavowal of claim scope, we decline to import limitations into “similar to the object of the image previously contained in the database,” recited in claim 1, on the basis of the Specification.” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Conclusion Based on the record, we do not agree that “similar to the object of the image previously contained in the database,” should be construed as “sufficiently similar to identify the specific object of the image previously claims. As demonstrated in the analysis of the prior art below, we need not provide an explicit claim construction for “similar to the object of the image previously contained in the database.” Instead, we give the words “similar to the object of the image previously contained in the database,” recited in claims 1, 7, and 8, their ordinary and customary meaning, as they would be understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). As demonstrated in the analysis below, we need not explicitly construe any other claim terms or phrases to resolve any additional disputes between the parties. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 18

  • Claim Construction › Extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, experts)Decided for petitioner

    “Although “extrinsic evidence may be useful . . . it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” As explained in the previous sections, the intrinsic evidence (i.e., the claims and Specification) does not support Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Dr. Papanikolopoulos’ testimony regarding the proposed claim construction is at odds with the claim construction mandated by the claims themselves and the Specification and, therefore, Dr. Papanikolopoulos’ testimony cannot supersede the intrinsic evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1308.” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 7,486,807 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,486,807
• Google LLC v. 138 East LCD Advancements LimitedAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2025 · IPR2024-00958 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4–6, denied cancellation of claim 3 and substitute claims 7–12, and found substitute claims 7, 8, and 10–12 unpatentable on four obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “proposed assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art, as a person having a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or related engineering disciplines, and two years of experience in multi-lens camera systems. Paper 6, 8–9. Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in its briefing. Petitioner’s description of a person of ordinary skill in the art is consistent with the subject matter of the ’638 patent. As Patent Owner does not raise an objection, or provide an alternative description, we continue to use the same assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art that we used in the Institution Decision. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther

    “Only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and then only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (in the context of an inter partes review, applying Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). In the Institution Decision, we determined that no claim term required express construction at that stage of the proceeding. Paper 6, 10. In its briefing, Patent Owner does not address any claim construction issues. In its Opposition to the Revised Motion to Amend, Petitioner does not propose any express claim construction. To the extent that the determination of the meaning of any claim term is necessary, we use its ordinary and customary meaning in this Decision. D. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements” slip op. at 14

  • ScopeMotion to amend granted in partGranted in part

    “Section 316(d) does not permit a Patent Owner to cancel or propose substitutes for non-challenged claims. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). We therefore grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel original claims 1, 2, and 4–6 of the ’638 patent, but do not grant Patent Owner’s request to cancel claim 3, because claim 3 was not challenged by Petitioner.1 E. Proposed Substitute Claims 7–12” slip op. at 7

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner. Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s reliance on Yadav (Ex. 1009) is improper because Yadav “was not published until May 16, 2013, more than three years after the priority date of the ’638 patent.” However, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)(1), a published patent application, such as Yadav, is deemed to be prior art as of its filing date, not its publication date as Patent Owner asserts. See Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 125 F. 4th 1120, 1126–27 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (“[U]nder § 102(e)(1), even if a patent application was published after a claimed invention, it may serve as prior art to the invention if the application was filed before the invention.”). Yadov was filed on September 14, 2009 (Ex. 1009, code (22)), before the ’638 patent’s earliest possible priority date of December 25, 2009 (Ex. 1001, code (30)), making it prior art.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,482,638 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,482,638
• Everstar Merchandise Co., Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 18, 2025 · PGR2019-00056 · APJ Stacey G White · PGR · Remand

  Claims 2–7, 9–19, 21–25, 27, 30, 31, and 33 are unpatentable as obvious; Petitioner did not prove claims 8, 20, 26, 28, 29, and 32 unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “The Federal Circuit found that “[t]he factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan,” concluding “[n]othing more is required to establish a motivation to combine.” Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4. The Federal Circuit observed that “Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1,” and accordingly, “reverse[d] the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate[d] the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent,” remanding to us for further proceedings. Id. at 4–5. With those instructions in mind, we review the Petitioner’s allegations regarding claims 2–33.” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “F. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art In the First Final Written Decision, we determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have (1) at least two years of experience in the design of decorative lighting, or (2) at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field, and a basic familiarity with circuits used in decorative lighting.” Paper 40, 12. We see no reason to depart from that earlier determination.” slip op. at 12

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

    “The parties agree that we do not need to construe any claim terms. Pet. 8–9; PO Resp. 16–17. We likewise agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 13

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner did not dispute that the combined teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose each limitation of claim 1. Patent Owner, however, did dispute Petitioner’s proposed reasons for combining Kumada and Debladis ’120, and argues that Debladis ’120 is not analogous art. PO Resp. 36–61. The Federal Circuit stated that substantial evidence only supports the conclusion that a POSA would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120. The factual record and Willis’s concession on appeal conclusively establish that the cost of copper was a known problem in the art, Debladis ’120 (and Kumada) helped address that issue, and Willis has not disputed that combining the teachings of Kumada and Debladis ’120 was within the skill of an ordinary artisan. Nothing more is required to establish a motivation to combine. Given that Willis has conceded that the combination of Kumada and Debladis ’120 disclose all the limitations in claim 1, we reverse the Board’s patentability determination as to that claim and vacate the Board’s judgment as to the remaining claims of the ’037 patent. Everstar II, 2025 WL 1501940, 4 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit further noted Patent Owner’s secondary considerations arguments as to claim 1 and stated [t]he cited evidence consists only of a temporal connection between the introduction of Willis’s invention and the UL 588 standards, and deposition testimony of a single witness who seemingly disclaimed any connection between the two. This is not sufficient to rescue a claim as to secondary considerations. Id. at 4, n. 5 (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, the Federal Circuit ruled that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kumada and Debladis ’120. 6. Analysis of Independent Claim 33” slip op. at 17

  Patent outcomesUS 10,222,037 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,222,037

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.