• Qualcomm Incorporated v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 5, 2026 · IPR2024-01336 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–9, 24, and 25 are unpatentable; claims 10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–23 were not shown unpatentable, principally due to missing limitations or insufficient motivation to combine.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “information” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning as “data,” and that Patent Owner’s narrower construction of “first information” and “second information” lacks sufficient support in the intrinsic record. We agree with Petitioner that the ’802 patent Specification defines “information” as data when it uses the phrase “information (i.e., data).” See Ex. 1001, 5:60–62 (“Information (i.e., data) to be transmitted may be received in a baseband digital system 250, such as a wireless digital baseband processor.” (emphasis added)), 11:30–32 (“In this example, the signals 911 and 912 carry the same information (data).” (emphasis added)). As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “specification’s use of ‘i.e.’ signals an intent to define the word to which it refers.” Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). slip op. at 13

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

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

    “argument based on Fernandez alone, we find that Petitioner has not provided a sufficient evidentiary basis to support a motivation to remove the amplification from each of Fernandez’s signal generators 10A-10E and add a single power amplifier instead. See Pet. 76–77 Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Petitioner’s only rationale for this modification to Fernandez is that “[a] single amplifier has several advantages compared to multiple amplifiers, including lower complexity, a single (vs. multiple) potential point of failure, and lower cost,” and that one of ordinary skill “would have found a single amplifier to be a simple matter of design preference.” Pet. 76–77. Dr. Almeroth simply repeats these cursory allegations without providing any further explanation or evidentiary support. Ex. 1003 ¶ 235. Moreover, Dr. Cooklev provides credible testimony that replacing Fernandez’s amplification in signal generators 10A–10E with a single amplifier would not necessarily have the advantages that Petitioner suggests. See Ex. 2013 ¶¶ 99, 104–105. For example, Dr. Cooklev testifies that a single amplifier would need to have a wider bandwidth than the multiple amplifiers used in Fernandez, which could cause potential stability issues. Id. ¶ 105. According to Dr. Cooklev, this wider bandwidth would require more circuit elements, and thus would not provide the reduction in space usage and power consumption that Petitioner asserts. Id. According to Dr. Cooklev, Montojo also points to several “substantial, and potentially impractical, drawbacks” of using a single amplifier for multiple signal generators, including power constraints imposed by spectral emission requirements and on-board battery capacity. Id. ¶ 104 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 7– 8). In light of this testimony, which we find credible, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to support its assertion that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to replace the multiple amplifiers in Fernandez’s signal generators with a single amplifier.” slip op. at 65

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedOther

    “We find credible and agree with Dr. Cooklev’s testimony that the predistortion signals from tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are cancelled out by Suzuki’s amplifier” 28. Ex. 2013 ¶ 50. Dr. Cooklev supports his opinion by referring to paragraph 1 of Suzuki, which states that Suzuki’s invention is directed to “a multi-band lookup table type predistorter” (such as the one implemented using lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6) that “compensates for a distortion of a power amplifier.” Ex. 2013 ¶ 54; Ex. 1004 ¶ 1. Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is also supported by paragraph 3 of Suzuki, which explains that a conventional digital predistorter uses a lookup table “for linearizing non-linear characteristics of an amplifier.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 3; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Dr. Cooklev further supports his opinion by relying on Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 46 that power amplifier 28 is “subject to distortion compensation” by the predistorter, and that distortion components in the signal output by the amplifier are canceled by “distortion compensation data [that] are read out from the lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 and provided to the adders 13-1 and 13-2, respectively.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 46; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. And, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion is supported by Suzuki’s disclosure in paragraph 47 that the distortion compensation added by adders 13-1 and 13-2 add the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “to perform distortion compensation (addition of predistortion)” to “signals to be transmitted.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 47; Ex. 2013 ¶ 54. Petitioner agrees that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 “are added to the respective frequency band from” input signal ST “in order to predistort the output signal, which is then transmitted,” and does not dispute that the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 is ultimately cancelled out by the distortion created by amplifier 28. Pet. Reply 8. In light of the above evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Suzuki’s distortion components from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2 in Figure 6 (which Petitioner relies on for the first and second digital signals in limitations 10a and 10b) are cancelled out by the distortion created by power amplifier 28 before the signal is ultimately transmitted. We agree with Petitioner that these first and second digital signals include data in the form of distortion compensation data. However, because these signals are cancelled by the distortion from amplifier 28 before transmission, the data from these signals is never transmitted. Thus, the first and second digital signals identified by Petitioner (the distortion compensation data from lookup tables 17-1 and 17-2) do not comprise data “to be transmitted,” as limitations 10a and 10b require.” slip op. at 35

  Patent outcomesUS 7,924,802 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,924,802
• Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies Ltd.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 19, 2026 · IPR2024-01287 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 5 is unpatentable over Bernstein alone or with Tsuge; claims 1–3 and 6–11 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted grounds fail to teach required limitations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the alleged invention “would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science or comparable degree or 2–3 years industry experience designing and/or maintaining back-end networking equipment.” Pet. 11. In the Preliminary Response, Patent Owner stated that it “does not contest Petitioner’s recitation of the level of skill in the art, because even under Petitioner’s proposed level of skill,” Petitioner “has failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In the Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, finding that it was consistent with the ’982 patent and the asserted prior art. Inst. Dec. 14 (citing Okajima, 261 F.3d at 1355).” slip op. at 14

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingDecided for patent owner

    “Following the Institution Decision, both parties submitted proposed claim constructions in the district court stating that the preamble is limiting. Ex. 2009, 3–4 (Petitioner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart); Ex. 2010, 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary Claim Construction Chart). Patent Owner states in the Patent Owner Response that “[t]he parties now agree that the entire preambles of both claims 1 and 6 are limiting.” PO Resp. 17. In its Reply, Petitioner states that “whether the Board finds the phrase ‘service auto-configuration’” in the preamble to be limiting is “immaterial” because it “does not affect the analysis of whether the prior art cited in the petition invalidates [the challenged] claims.” Pet. Reply 5. At the oral hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that it does not dispute that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting. Tr. 20:25–21:17, 23:15–17. Because the parties agreed in district court that the entire preamble of claims 1 and 6 is limiting, and also agree in this proceeding, we find that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 are limiting for purposes of this Decision. We will discuss the meaning of the preamble further in the sections below applying the prior art to the claims. See §§ III.A..4(a), III.A.7, III.C.1(a), III.C.7, infra.” slip op. at 15

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

    “Based on the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we do not need to, and do not, construe any other claim terms to resolve the controversy before us. 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))).” slip op. at 16

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

    “Based on the full trial record, we find that Petitioner has failed to meet its burden to show that Bernstein recites a “service auto-configuration” method as recited in the preamble of claim 1. As discussed above, the parties agree that the preamble of claim 1, including the “service auto-configuration method” language, is limiting. See § II.B, supra. As we explained in the Institution Decision, the Petition does not set forth a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how the prior art discloses a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 11, 24; Inst. Dec. 32. Instead, the Petition merely explains how Bernstein teaches “a DOCSIS Provisioning of EPON (DPoE) system,” without explaining how it teaches a “service auto-configuration method.” Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 59). By failing to offer a construction of “service auto-configuration method” or explain how this limitation is met by the prior art, the Petition fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior art discloses or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 9,287,982 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 9,287,982
• Apple Inc. v. Theta IP, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00819 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Behbahani, Leete, and Tan; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable because the references did not teach its required comparison of desired and interferer signal strengths.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner thus proposes a Master’s degree with two years of experience, while Patent Owner proposes a Bachelor’s degree with five years of experience. At the institution stage, we did not see a material difference in the proposals given that both parties also indicate that more education could substitute for less experience and vice versa, and thus adopted Patent Owner’s proposal. Inst. Dec. 9. We requested that the parties address during trial if either believed that the choice of one proposal over the other would make a difference in the patentability analysis. Id. Neither party has done so. Accordingly, because nothing in the record persuades us that our preliminary finding in the Institution Decision was incorrect, and because neither party has challenged our finding, we maintain our adoption of Patent Owner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Here, as in the Director’s example, Petitioner advanced a narrower construction of the dynamic limitations before the district court, which the district court declined to adopt. Pet. 9; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. Instead, the district court adopted a “plain-and-ordinary meaning” construction, which Patent Owner proposed. PO Resp. 38; PO Sur-reply 10 n.2; Ex. 2015; Ex. 2025, 31–47. In the Petition, Petitioner proposed applying the plain and ordinary meaning construction that had already been preliminarily adopted by the district court. Compare Pet. (filed May 1, 2024) with Ex. 2015 (preliminarily adopting plain and ordinary meaning construction on March 25, 2024). Applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR. Thus, we give the dynamic limitation its plain-and-ordinary meaning, which is “adjusting during operation based—at least in part—on information gained during operation.”” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “In our Institution Decision, we stated that we “will give the term ‘signal path’ its ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ and not limit it only to analog components, as the district court found and the parties agree.” Inst. Dec. 11. Given that the parties continue to agree on this point, we see no need to depart from the construction we adopted in our Institution Decision. Moreover, applying Revvo, we find that Petitioner had a sufficient reason for advancing the broader, court-adopted construction in this IPR for the same reasons as discussed above. In this proceeding, the dispute between the parties concerns the application of this and the surrounding claim language (i.e., “in the receiver signal path,” “in the signal path”) to the disclosures in Behbahani. See PO Resp. 43–45. Therefore, we will provide further discussion in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding Behbahani below. However, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language to the extent it requires adjusting an impedance and/or bias current of a circuit while it is in the signal path. See Id. at 50–51.” slip op. at 14

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedOther

    “Patent Owner’s arguments generally fail to address why Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “plurality of circuits [comprising/including] . . . a filter,” and instead focus on why the low-pass and high-pass filter circuits do not teach the limitation, which is not Petitioner’s position. As stated above, we agree with Patent Owner’s plain reading of the claim language – i.e., that it “requires adjusting the bias, in or of a circuit.” See PO Resp. 49. However, Patent Owner’s reading of the claim does not persuasively address why the Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” We have reviewed Dr. Larson’s cited testimony and disagree with Patent Owner that he provided “a well-supported opinion . . . as to why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would not understand the entire bandpass box to be a single ‘circuit,’ or to reflect variation in ‘an impedance’ or ‘a bias’ in the claims.” Sur-reply 4 (citing Ex. 2020 ¶¶ 46–48, 71, 74–83). Dr. Larson testifies that the ’330 patent (which has the same specification as the ’164 patent) “teach[es] these adjustments [that dynamically change operating parameters] as changes effected in a single circuit block.” Ex. 2020 ¶ 46 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1001, Figs. 8A, 9A, 8:20–25, 8:36–39, 9:36–59, 10:1–18 (emphasis added)). Dr. Larson does not provide further explanation as to what he means by a “single circuit block,” but relies on Figures 8A and 9A, which show a “function block,” and other disclosures referring to a “function block.” See id. There is no dispute that the recited “circuit” in the receiver signal path is referring to these “function blocks.” See Tr. 22:20–23:4. The ’164 patent states that Figure 8A, which includes function block 820, is “an embodiment of the present invention” 8:28–30. Similarly, Figure 9A, which includes function block 920, “illustrate[s] one of the possible power saving techniques.” Id. at 3:41–42. The ’164 patent describes that “[f]unctional block 820 . . . may be a filter, mixer, amplifier, or other circuit or circuits in a wireless transceiver or other electronic circuits or system.” Id. at 8:30–33 (emphasis added). Based on these disclosures, we are not convinced that Function Block 820 or 920 cannot include multiple filters in a Variable Bandpass Filter Block, or that Behbahani’s Variable Bandpass Filter Block does not teach the recited “circuit.” Dr. Larson also relies on Figure 6 of the ’164 patent to conclude that” slip op. at 45

  Patent outcomesUS 11,564,164 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,564,164
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00745 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 45–47, 51, 59, 60, 68, and 69 are unpatentable; claims 56 and 57 are not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 85–88 and 91 are unpatentable; amendment is granted for claims 92 and 93.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “technical field, and the asserted prior art, we agree with Petitioner’s proposed qualifications for the person of ordinary skill in the art, except we decline to adopt “at least,” as that language is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, Petitioner’s proposed definition is consistent with the level of 3 Patent Owner does not present objective evidence of nonobviousness. skill reflected in the specification of the ’474 patent and the asserted prior art references. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Petitioner states that “no formal constructions are presently necessary,” and that it “maps [the] prior art in this Petition in a manner consistent with Patent Owner’s allegations of infringement before the district court.” Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1017; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 21–25). Patent Owner states that it believes there is no need to construe any terms of the challenged original claims because there is no underlying controversy regarding any claim terms. PO Resp. 10. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express construction of any claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); 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 12

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

    “3. Motivation to Combine Buibas and Sinyavskiy Petitioner argues that “it would have been obvious to partition Buibas’[s] spiking networks according to the specific techniques disclosed in Sinyavskiy” for multiple reasons. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–203; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, 191, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1003 ¶ 63). First, Petitioner asserts, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to parallelize task execution on the robot and improve learning capabilities (e.g., through faster learning, greater computing efficiency, and task-specific learning models) of the Buibas mobile robotic apparatus as described by Sinyavskiy and discussed by Dr. Janet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). Second, Petitioner contends, “partitioning Buibas’[s] robotic brain as suggested by Sinyavskiy would have beneficially expanded the range of tasks that the robot could perform by dedicating partitions to specialized tasks.” Id. at 13– 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 12, 185, 188, Fig. 6A; Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 71–72, 85, 92, 179–205; Ex. 1003 ¶ 65). Third, Petitioner argues, one of ordinary skill “would have been motivated to partition Buibas’[s] spiking neural network as suggested by Sinyavskiy to permit unused partitions or unused resources in the partitions to be reassigned for different tasks,” which would allow for a network processing apparatus that has increased processing capability for the same network capacity while also having a lower cost, size and power consumption. Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 190–192, 105, 34, code (57); Ex. 1003 ¶ 66). Fourth, Petitioner argues that “Buibas briefly mentions that its spiking neural networks can be partitioned but discloses little detail about the partitioning,” which would invite one of ordinary skill to turn to other references, such as Sinyavskiy, for additional detail on how to implement partitioning. Pet. 14–15 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 67). Fifth, Petitioner asserts, combining Buibas and Sinyavskiy would merely “involve[] the application of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to a known system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain) to yield predictable results (e.g., Buibas’[s] robot using a spiking neural network partitioned as taught in Sinyavskiy),” particularly because “the partitioning of the Buibas neural network is reminiscent of Recurrent Fuzzy Neural Networks (RFNNs) that were already commonplace at the end of the 1990’s.” Id. at 15 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 68). Finally, Petitioner contends, the proposed combination merely involves “use of known techniques (e.g., Sinyavskiy’s partitioned neural network) to improve a similar system (e.g., Buibas’[s] mobile robot and robotic brain).” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 69). Petitioner further argues that one of ordinary skill “would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially as Buibas and Sinyavskiy describe highly similar systems involving spiking neural networks used for training/operating robots.” Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70). Indeed, Petitioner contends, “Buibas itself confirms that its spiking neural network can be partitioned, while Sinyavskiy provides the details for doing so.” Id. at 16 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 92; Ex. 1003 ¶ 70).” slip op. at 14

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner and Dr. Saber that these “weights” are numerical values associated with connections among neurons, and the “weight vectors” are merely lists of weights. PO Resp. 13–14; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 66–67. When input is provided to the neural network, the network uses the weights of its connections in a feedforward calculation manner to provide an output that can include an instruction for operating a device. Ex. 2001 ¶ 66. We agree with and find credible Dr. Saber’s testimony that Buibas’s merging of weights or weight vectors results in updated network weights, and does not, by itself, disclose the merging of instruction sets for operating a device, or the correlation of the same set of inputs for all or a portion of a circumstance representation with instruction sets for operating two different devices. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 65, 67, 69–71.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 11,663,474 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,663,474
• Intel Corporation v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ)Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00728 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–15, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 6, 9, and 16 are not shown unpatentable because the Midya-based grounds fail on the terminal limitation.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’430 patent and the prior art. In adopting this definition, we note that neither the title nor the “Field of the Invention” portions of the ’430 patent limit the invention to integrated circuits, and Patent Owner does not dispute that claim 1 encompasses inductors that are not provided on an integrated circuit. Ex. 1001, code (54), 1:16–22. Additionally, Dr. Prucnal’s definitions have shifted, and his latest definition purports to be based on Dr. Tentzeris’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill, but changes “experience designing integrated circuits or inductors for semiconductors” to “experience designing integrated circuits and inductors for semiconductors” without sufficient explanation of the reasons for the change. Supp. Prucnal Decl. ¶ 8; Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 56. However, our Decision in this case would not change under Patent Owner’s revised articulation. See Reply Tentzeris Decl. ¶ 57 (stating that his opinion would not change under Patent Owner’s revised definition of the level of ordinary skill).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner

    “After considering the full trial record, we agree with Petitioner that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 is not limiting. First, we determine that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in claim 11 does not provide antecedent basis for terms in the body of the claim. The body of claim 11 does not refer to “the semiconductor die” or even mention the “semiconductor die” at all, and neither do any of the claims that depend from claim 11. We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the phrase “on a semiconductor die” in the preamble of claim 11 provides antecedent basis for the term “the first inductor” in the body of the claim, because the “first inductor” language in the preamble provides antecedent basis for “the first inductor” language in the claim’s body. The “on a semiconductor die” language in the preamble is presented separately and can be easily parsed from the preamble’s language reciting a “first inductor” without impacting the understandability or grammatical completeness of claim 11. Therefore, the “on a semiconductor die” language in claim 11’s preamble is not necessary to provide antecedent basis for the phrase “the first inductor” in the body of claim 11. This use of language in claim 11 is distinguishable from the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Deere v. Bush Hog, cited by Patent Owner, where the preamble term “rotary cutter deck” provided antecedent basis for the term “said deck” recited in the claim body, because in Deere, the words “rotary cutter” appeared directly before, directly modified, and were not easily parsed from the term “deck.” See Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2012); PO Resp. 7–8.” slip op. at 12

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that claims 1 and 11 do not require that the first and second inductor be laterally spaced, but instead merely require that the second inductor be positioned at a “predetermined distance” from the first inductor. Nothing in the claim language restricts this “predetermined distance” from being in the X, Y, or Z direction, or requires that the inductors be laterally spaced in the same plane. Moreover, the fact that the ’430 patent Specification describes embodiments where the inductors are laterally spaced in the same plane does not limit the claims to those embodiments. As explained previously, our reviewing court “has expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906. “Even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Id. We see no such “words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction” here. Accordingly, we give the term “predetermined distance” its ordinary meaning, which includes a distance in any direction. The parties do not dispute that Taniguchi’s inductors are spaced apart with an insulation layer in between. Therefore, under the ordinary meaning of the claim language, Taniguchi’s second inductor is “positioned at a predetermined distance from the first inductor.”” slip op. at 26

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with and adopt the ITC’s construction of “closely spaced,” which is “two terminals in proximity to each other (such that the electromagnetic field at a certain distance from the first inductor (where the second inductor is positioned) is reduced.” Ex. 1020, 12. We find that this construction is supported by the intrinsic record, including the Specification of the ’430 patent, which shows terminals being “closely spaced” compared to the dimensions of the inductor itself, and explains that the purpose of the close spacing is to make the field contributions from the two parts of the inductor identical. See Ex. 1005, Figs. 1–2, 4:28–32. Claims 1 and 11 of the ’430 patent lack specific dimensions for either the inductor or the spacing between the terminals, and indicate that the purpose of the close spacing is to “minimiz[e] magnetic field contributions from the terminals.” Ex. 1001, 10:22–25, 11:7–10. Dr. Prucnal’s ITC declaration, although not intrinsic evidence, further supports our conclusion. Although Patent Owner does not propose a construction for “closely spaced terminals,” it appears to argue that this term must be interpreted based on the dimensions of the semiconductor chip described in the ’430 patent. PO Resp. 43. We do not see any basis in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to impart such a narrow reading to the claim language, particularly because the ’430 patent Specification does not define the “closely spaced terminals” in relation to a semiconductor chip, and claim 1 is not limited to inductors on a semiconductor chip.” slip op. at 40

  Patent outcomesUS 7,151,430 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,151,430
• Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00490 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 are unpatentable over Oborne or Oborne and Purves; claims 2, 9, and 17 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 74–79). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 15. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’973 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Inst. Dec. 11.” slip op. at 11

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We have considered Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Shamos’s testimony in light of Oborne’s disclosure, but find Patent Owner’s arguments and Dr. Malek’s responsive testimony to be more persuasive. We agree with Dr. Malek that, in Oborne, “device fingerprinting simply refers to identifying a device and the user associated with that device.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 111. Specifically, paragraph 26 of Oborne (quoted above) discloses authentication of a user, where “device fingerprinting” is utilized to verify a user’s identity where a user exclusively uses a client device such as a smartphone or laptop computer. Ex. 1011 ¶ 26 (emphasis added). The use of the device fingering for determining the device identity in order to authenticate a user is corroborated by the disclosures in paragraph 47 of Oborne which refer, in part, to the “<client_details” which can include a “<client_type>smartphone” and “client_fingerprint>font list, MAC address, memory size, memory.” Id. ¶ 47 (emphasis added). So, contrary to Petitioner’s arguments, we do not discern any disclosure in Oborne that “device fingerprinting” ties a token to a particular device. See, Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 26, 47. Rather, Oborne’s disclosures support Dr. Malek’s testimony that, contrary to Petitioner’s position, “device fingerprinting could be used to limit a token to a set of fingerprinted devices, such as each device belonging to the user.” Ex. 2009 ¶ 113. Moreover, Petitioner (and Dr. Shamos’s) statement that “the first device’s fingerprint would not match” the fingerprint for the second device merely provides a possible outcome of device fingerprinting, but does not explain why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to use device fingerprinting to make the “second device’s token . . . invalid in the first device,” or make the “token for the second device . . . a new credential,” or point to disclosures in Oborne that would support such a motivation. See Pet. 34–35; Ex. 1005 ¶ 228. Thus, we find that Petitioner’s contentions as to this limitation lack sufficient specificity to explain how Oborne teaches the limitation. See Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Ultimately, it is the petitioner’s burden to present a clear argument.”); Intelligent Bio-Sys. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’ ” (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3))). We further agree with Patent Owner that Oborne’s disclosure of “device fingerprinting” is limited, and does not describe how it would be implemented for a user with two devices. See PO Resp. 41–42. Therefore, Dr. Shamos’s cited Declaration testimony is “conclusory, adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.” Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 at 15 (PTAB August 24, 2022) (precedential); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.65(a) (“Expert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.”).” slip op. at 41

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

    “We recognize the application of “an expansive and flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415. However, we “must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (emphases added) (internal quotations omitted). Although Stafford discloses that the key signatures may be copied from the display or delivered to the user via email, Petitioner does not expand upon whether the user would also copy the image from the display, whether the image would be provided via email as well, or provide any other explanation other than that the image credential would be provided with the scannable key signatures. Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 97, 99; Pet. 60. Although a credential image would presumably need to be retrieved or generated in some manner, and associated with the key signatures in some manner, Petitioner also does not sufficiently explain how this would work in the proposed combination, or how the user would transmit the scannable key signature to the recipient. Although proof of physical or bodily incorporation is not required, a satisfactory explanation of “how the combination of the . . . references [is] supposed to work” is necessary to support “a conclusion that a relevant skilled artisan would have been motivated to make the combination and reasonably expect success in doing so.” Personal Web Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding no error where the Board required petitioner to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented petitioner’s proposed substitution). Petitioner fails to provide “a clear, evidence-supported account of the contemplated workings” of the proposed combination of Stafford and Purves. See Personal Web, 848 F.3d at 994.” slip op. at 62

  Patent outcomesUS 11,329,973 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,329,973
• Visa Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00489 · APJ Russell E Cass · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, 11–18, and 20 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 2, 10, 19, and 21 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would typically have a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 76–81). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of those fields.” Id. In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Patent Owner states that it agrees with the level of ordinary skill set forth in our Institution Decision. PO Resp. 9. Based on the full trial record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of skill in the art, which is consistent with the ’859 patent and the asserted prior art of record.” slip op. at 8

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Inst. Dec. 11. We also explained that we did not need to determine for purposes of institution whether the term “OVER file” necessarily includes “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file.” Id. We also determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that Oborne’s tokens qualify as “OVER files.” Id. at 11, 24–27.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “After considering the full trial record, we adhere to the construction in our Institution Decision interpreting the claim language at issue “to require that an issuing agency ha[s] verified a virtual representation in an OVER file as being an official representation of the credential.” Inst. Dec. 13. In light of Patent Owner’s statements in its Sur-reply, we further clarify that this construction encompasses (1) considering the OVER file as the credential and verifying the OVER file, or (2) verifying a virtual representation of the credential contained within the OVER file.” slip op. at 12

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

    “3. Other Terms The parties do not propose constructions for any other claim terms, and we determine that it is not necessary to provide an express interpretation of any other claim terms for purposes of this proceeding. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).” slip op. at 13

  Patent outcomesUS 10,749,859 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,749,859
• Visa, Inc. v. Cortex MCP, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 21, 2025 · IPR2024-00486 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–6, 8–18, and 21–33 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 7, 19, and 20 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “computer science, computer engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of work involving electronic payment systems, network authentication systems, or related areas.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 89–94). Petitioner further states that a person of ordinary skill “could have less education but significant professional experience in one or more of these fields.” Id. We adopted this proposed level of skill for the Institution Decision. See Dec. 6– 7. Patent Owner agrees with this definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 37–41). For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’531 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “In our Institution Decision, we preliminarily determined that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. Dec. 9. We also explained that we did not need to determine whether the term “OVER file” 8 necessarily includes “tokens” as a general matter, or further elaborate on what additional characteristics might be required to qualify as an “OVER file” for purposes of institution. Id. We also determined that Petitioner had made a sufficient showing for purposes of institution that Oborne’s tokens qualify as “OVER files.” Id. at 10, 23–27. In its Response, Patent Owner states that no construction of “OVER file” is required and that “the claims may be confirmed under the Board’s construction.” PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 43, 46–48). In its Reply, Petitioner argues that Patent Owner is treating the Institution Decision’s construction “as requiring that the virtual representation itself (not merely the OVER file) be used for verification of the credential,” even though “the claims impose no such requirement on the virtual representation.” Pet. Reply 1–2 (citing PO Resp. 54). “For example,” Petitioner asserts, “verification in subsequent claim elements involves a scan associated with the OVER file, and while the OVER file ‘compris[es]’ the virtual representation, it may encompass other things.” Id. at 2 (citing Ex. 1047, 30:16–31:24; Ex. 1048 ¶ 27). We will consider this issue further below when construing the term “verified by an issuing agency.” Based on the full trial record, we maintain our determination in the Institution Decision that the term “OVER file” encompasses a virtual representation of one or more credentials, to be used for verification of those credentials. See Dec. 9.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning to support the rationale for the combination of Oborne and Purves for the teaching of the limitation “requesting the credential.” As Petitioner points out (Pet. Reply 15), in the discussion of claim 23, the Petition refers to claim 22, which requires “generat[ion] of the credential.” IPR487, Pet. 37; see also Ex. 1005 ¶ 301. That discussion explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Oborne and Purves because “the teachings of Purves would be recognized as useful to add new credentials to the digital wallet of Oborne’s PPT apparatus (for example, where a user had not yet added any credentials, or where adding further credentials were desired).” IPR487, Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 295). Dr. Shamos testifies that the credential that Purves teaches is a new gift card or reloadable prepaid card. Ex. 1005 ¶ 294 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). The Petition explains that a person of skill “would generate the new credential,” as Purves teaches that a customer may obtain a new gift card or prepaid card. IPR487, Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 83). Dr. Shamos testifies that “when the processor determines that no matching credential is stored” “a new credential would be generated because “the purpose of Oborne’s tokens is to represent a credential” and “by generating the new credential, the user becomes able to benefit from 9 We note that Patent Owner does not assert that there would be any security concerns with the combination of Oborne and Purves under this ground, which is based on the Purves’ embodiment concerning requests for a gift card or prepaid card credential. See PO Resp. 48–50. 49 Oborne’s tokenization system, and if the credential was already stored, there would be no reason to generate it, since it would already exist.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 298. For claim 23, which “requests the credential from the issuing agency,” Dr. Shamos further testifies that “when new credentials were generated upon user request, such as the gift and prepaid cards taught by Purves. . ., it would be natural for the issuer to store such new credentials, at least until they were sent to the recipient, and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s system would confirm their existence and validity.” Id. ¶ 304. Patent Owner does not present any arguments challenging the sufficiency of Petitioner’s showing as to claim 22. As explained for claim 22, Petitioner relies upon Purves to teach the generation of a credential like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card, which would be useful to have as a credential in Oborne, and Patent Owner does not dispute this rationale. IPR487, Pet. 35; see generally PO Resp. As Petitioner also explains, a user would want to store credentials like a gift card or reloadable prepaid card in Oborne’s PPT, at least until they were sent to the recipient, “and more practically for as long as they remained valid, so that the issuer’s systems could confirm their existence.” IPR487, Pet. 38. As Dr. Shamos testifies, this is taught by Purves’ disclosure of retrieving the user’s “payment account information from the payment account issuer,” with user’s consent, and the issuer responding with information for data for establishing a virtual wallet including a “payment account in a virtual wallet.” See Ex. 1005 ¶ 301 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 83, 107–108 (“The user may then indicate that they desire to add a new payment account to their virtual wallet”)). Accordingly, 50” slip op. at 49

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “We also find Dr. Malek’s testimony on this point more persuasive than Dr. Shamos’s testimony. See Ex. 2009 ¶¶ 165–170; Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35–39; 72 Pet. Reply 27–28 (citing Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 55–60). For example, Dr. Shamos testifies that the combination’s use of obscured credential images would not “have risked exposure of the key signatures themselves since the image does not depict or otherwise convey the key signatures.” Ex. 1048 ¶ 37. However, although Petitioner fails to sufficiently explain the proposed combination, as discussed above, presumably there is some relationship between the credential image and the key signatures, since the proposed combination purportedly allows for the user to identify items that were previously selected for release, in order to provide the relevant key signatures to the recipient. Pet. 62–63; Ex. 1005 ¶ 367; Ex. 1048 ¶ 33. In contrast, Dr. Malek testifies, and we agree, that providing an unencrypted image of a credit card, for example, would inform potential attackers of the payload of the credential that is being attempted to be securely transmitted which is a security vulnerability. Ex. 2009 ¶ 169. Although Dr. Shamos testifies that Purves teaches associating wallet items with obscured or representative images and that such representative images were routinely used in virtual wallets, Ex. 1048 ¶¶ 35, 38 (citing Ex. 1013 ¶ 85), we do not find this persuasive in the context of the proposed combination with Stafford’s system for securely storing, transmitting, and authenticating credential information relating to an entity, with use of key signatures. Ex. 2009 ¶ 160; Ex. 1012 ¶ 2. Accordingly, Petitioner’s generic reasons for the proposed combination, coupled with Petitioner’s lack of specificity as to the proposed combination, leads us to determine that Petitioner’s reasons explaining why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Stafford and 73 Purves are not persuasive in light of the teachings of those references and the testimonial evidence provided by Dr. Shamos, as discussed above. Further, as also discussed, the prior art fails to teach an “OVER engine” as claimed. Therefore, Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims 1, 15, and 21 are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3–5, 7–14, 16, 18–20, 22–26, and 28–33, which depend from claims 1, 15, and 21, are unpatentable over Stafford and Purves. Further, we have reviewed Petitioner’s showing for the obviousness of claims 2, 6, 17, and 27 over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey (Pet. 79–81), and the argument and evidence presented fail to remedy the deficiencies of the associated independent claims. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 17, and 27, are unpatentable over Stafford, Purves, and Neafsey.” slip op. at 72

  Patent outcomesUS 9,251,531 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 9,251,531
• Xu Peicheng (Hong Kong) Optoelectronic Technology Co., Limited v. Semisilicon Technology Corp.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00156 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3 and 8 are unpatentable over the stated obviousness grounds; claims 4–6 were not shown unpatentable because Hiroyuki does not teach the claimed terminal pins.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “II. ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Relying on the Schubert Declaration, Petitioner proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related discipline, and 6 years of 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), includes amendments to Section 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the challenged claims issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply pre-AIA law. See Pet. 2; Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30). 2 US 2009/0021955 A1, published January 22, 2009 (Ex. 1004, codes (10), (43)) (“Kuang”). Petitioner contends that Kuang is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. 3 US 2012/0050606 A1, published March 1, 2012 (Ex. 1005, codes (10), (43)) (“Debevec”). Petitioner asserts that “[b]ecause Debevec was filed prior to the priority date of the ’546 patent, it qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).” Pet. 2. 4 US 6,774,584 B2, issued August 10, 2004 (Ex. 1008, codes (10), (45)) (“Lys”). Petitioner contends that Lys is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2–3. 5 JP2006-228529, published August 31, 2006 (Ex. 1006, code (43)) (“Hiroyuki”). We refer herein to the certified English translation filed as Exhibit 1007. Petitioner contends that Hiroyuki is prior art to the ’546 patent at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 2. practical experience in designing or fabricating LED lighting systems, including controlling and driving LEDs,” or “[a]lternatively . . . would have had a master’s degree and four years of experience, or a Ph.D. degree and two years of experience.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 31). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 7–8. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’546 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 16

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

    “The parties also dispute the interpretation of the term “synchronous signals” recited in claim 1, with the parties proposing these respective constructions: Petitioner’s Proposed Patent Owner’s Proposed Construction Construction “signals that are sent to the slave “signals related to activities governed by synchronized timing” nodes to control their corresponding LED strings at the same time.”” slip op. at 20

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

    “The “context” is typically evaluated by reviewing the intrinsic record. See e.g., Regeneron, 130 F.4th at 1380–84. Here, as discussed above, the ’546 patent has multiple disclosures where a curtain lamp has a single light-emitting diode in one light-emitting diode string. See Ex. 1001, 1:33–36, 6:15–20, 6:27–40, 8:25–45. In particular, the ’546 patent similarly discloses a first curtain lamp with one LED in one light string, as well as a second curtain lamp, which provides further support for Petitioner’s proposed interpretation. Id. at 8:25–45. Although Patent Owner argues that Figures 7 and 8 disclose multiple LEDs and light strings in curtain lamps, other embodiments and claims explicitly indicate single components in a “curtain lamp.” “[T]here is a strong presumption against a claim construction that excludes a disclosed embodiment.” See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Given that certain embodiments and claim 8 disclose a curtain lamp with one light string with one LED, we decline to interpret the claim to prohibit Petitioner’s interpretation. Additionally, we do not find that Petitioner’s claim interpretation renders the claim terms nonsensical or illogical. See Becton, 616 F.3d at 1255. Patent Owner asserts otherwise, arguing that Petitioner’s interpretation is based upon a “nonsensical” or “absurd[]” argument, there is no reason to have both a master and slave control unit to operate a single LED, and the interpretation renders most of the components superfluous. See PO Sur-reply 12; PO Resp. Supp. Br. 5. As discussed above, however, although the ’546 patent does not appear to provide any explanation for why there are master and slave control units to operate a single LED, the patent nevertheless discloses that in embodiments. This situation is also distinguishable from Becton, where “unequivocal language” of the claim recited “spring means ‘connected to’ the hinged arm,” such that interpreting the spring means and the hinged arm as the same structure would have rendered the claim nonsensical. Becton, 616 F.3d at 1254–55. Becton further found that interpreting the spring means and hinged arm as the same structure would be inconsistent with descriptions of the elements in the specification. Id. Here, in contrast, the ’546 patent Specification is replete with disclosures of a curtain lamp having one light string with one LED, and claim 8 is directed to the same. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of these claim elements.” slip op. at 36

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner

    “Although Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply on “light strings” and “curtain lamp” as they relate to a single LED are improper, we do not agree. As Patent Owner acknowledges, the Petition and Dr. Schubert’s original declaration stated that a “curtain lamp” is “commonly understood to be one or more light strings.” See PO Sur-reply 12; see also Pet. 8; Ex. 1003 ¶ 37. Patent Owner did not contest Petitioner’s interpretation in its Response. See PO Resp. 15. Patent Owner did, however, argue that Kuang did not teach or suggest “light strings” in any form and therefore did not teach a “curtain lamp” under Petitioner’s definition of the same. PO Resp. 15–17. A petitioner reply may respond to arguments raised in a patent owner’s response under 35 U.S.C. § 42.23(b), and here Petitioner’s argument that a light string may have a single LED is properly presented in its Reply in response to Patent Owner’s arguments. Further, Patent Owner was not only aware that Petitioner had taken the position that a “curtain lamp” could be a single “light string,” but Patent Owner also did not dispute Petitioner’s interpretation.8 Our view, therefore, is that Petitioner’s argument that a curtain lamp may be a single LED is proper because it is corollary to Petitioner’s reply arguments on light strings. That is, Petitioner’s assertion follows from the reply arguments on light strings and the unopposed interpretation of curtain lamp as a single light string. Additionally, to the extent there could be any prejudice to Patent Owner by these light string and curtain lamp arguments, Patent Owner has had opportunities to address them by supplemental briefing.” slip op. at 32

  Patent outcomesUS 8,884,546 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,884,546
• Tesla, Inc. v. Autonomous Devices, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 3, 2025 · IPR2023-01172 · APJ Robert J Weinschenk · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–9, 11–14, 16–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grotmol; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable because Grotmol does not disclose its required sequence.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “(1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with two to three years of work experience in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning; or (2) a master’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, systems engineering, or equivalent course work with a focus in computer vision, image/video processing, and/or machine learning.” Pet. 3–4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 41). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Jason Janet. Ex. 1003 ¶ 41. Patent Owner “adopts” Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4–5. We also adopt Petitioner’s description for the purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5

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

    “The parties appear to agree that the term “connection” refers to a relationship, but dispute whether it includes a link. PO Resp. 7; Pet. Reply 23. We need not resolve this claim construction issue in order to resolve the parties’ disputes about the asserted ground of unpatentability. Specifically, as discussed below, even if we assume for the purposes of this Decision that the term “connection” means a “relationship that includes a link,” the asserted prior art still discloses the disputed claim limitation. See Section II.D.23.” slip op. at 6

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner that claim 15 requires modifying the first instruction set before determining the modified first instruction set based on an at least partial match between the new digital picture and the first digital picture. Claim 15 recites “modifying: the first one or more instruction sets” and “determining the modified the first one or more instruction sets . . . based on the at least partial match between the new one or more digital pictures and the first one or more digital pictures.” Ex. 1001, 162:65–163:15 (emphasis added). The phrase “the modified . . . instruction sets” in the determining limitation indicates an order because it refers back to the instruction sets modified in the modifying limitation. Id. Further, the phrase “based on the at least partial match” indicates that a partial match between the new picture and the first picture returns the modified first instruction set. Id. In order for a partial match to return the modified first instruction set, it is logical that the first instruction set previously was modified and correlated to the first picture. Id. Thus, claim 15 indicates that the modifying limitation is performed before the determining limitation. See Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“First, we look to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, [the recited steps] must be performed in the order written.”).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner

    “3. Means-plus-function limitations Petitioner contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more digital pictures,” the “means for receiving or generating a first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device,” and the “means for learning the first one or more digital pictures correlated with the first one or more instruction sets for operating the first device” in claim 34 is “one or more processor circuits.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1001, 16:8–60). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed construction. PO Resp. 11. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for purposes of this Decision. D. Anticipation of Claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 by Grotmol Petitioner argues that claims 1–9, 11–24, 26, 28, 29, and 31–34 are” slip op. at 10

  Patent outcomesUS 11,055,583 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 11,055,583

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.