• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Nov 25, 2025 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Linda E Horner · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 17 and 18 are unpatentable under §112(d) for improper dependent form; claims 1–10 and 12–16 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony, which is based on the arbitrary shading in Figure 7 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 174), that Schröder teaches or suggests limitation 1[d] because it (1) is inconsistent with Petitioner’s reasoning for limitation 1[c], and (2) it is based on an admitted misreading of the embodiment of Schröder’s Figure 5 (see Ex. 1002 ¶ 175). As to the first item, Dr. Anthony states that “a POSITA would have been motivated to place a battery in a part of the cavity that is far from a PCB holding other electrical components because that configuration allows for better thermal management.” Ex. 1002, para. 175. The problem with this statement is that Petitioner relies on Schröder’s teaching that inlay 12, i.e., the alleged PCB, could include “other electrical components,” such as a battery to support its position that Schröder suggests placing a battery between the ring halves. See, e.g., Pet. Reply 2 (pointing to Dr. Mercier’s depo testimony that inlay 12 with “other components” is inserted between ring halves); id. at 3 (relying on Schröder’s teaching about placing components in depressions on inlay 12). So, Petitioner earlier asserts for the battery limitation 1[c] that Schröder teaches or suggests putting a battery on inlay 12 inside the ring halves, but then for limitation 1[d], Dr. Anthony testifies that a POSITA would place the battery “far” away from the inlay 12 (i.e., the alleged PCB). These positions are inconsistent.” slip op. at 25

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “at least a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, or equivalent experience, and at least two years’ experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18–22). Petitioner also contends that a person of ordinary skill would have been “familiar with, for example, sensor system design and signal processing” and that “[a] higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Resp. 26. We adopt this uncontested definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. This definition is supported by the record and consistent with the disclosure in the ’178 patent and the references cited in the Petition.” slip op. at 10

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

    “Patent Owner indicates that in the related ITC proceeding involving the ’178 patent, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adopted three constructions agreed-upon by the parties in that proceeding8 and also construed two disputed terms.9 Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14). Patent Owner agrees with Petitioner, however, that no terms need to be construed to decide the issues raised in the Petition. Id. at 27. We reviewed the constructions adopted by the ITC. Ex. 2016, 5, 6, 14. 8 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ adopted the parties’ agreed-upon constructions that: (1) the preamble of claim 1 [a finger-worn wearable ring device] is limiting; (2) [positioned/configured to fit] within a “cavity” is [positioned/configured to fit] within a “hollow space”; and (3) [the internal housing component] “coupled with” [the external housing component] is [the internal housing component] “connected with” [the external housing component]. Ex. 2016, 5. 9 In the ITC proceeding, the ALJ construed the claims such that: (1) the internal and external housing components of claims 1, 12, and 17 enclose space and do not necessarily exclude potting material; and (2) “circumferential,” as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18, does not require a closed shape. Ex. 2016, 14, 17. These constructions are not germane to the issues we need to decide to resolve this proceeding. Thus, we agree that no explicit claim construction is necessary for this decision. To the extent the parties’ arguments raise any implicit issues of claim construction, we address those issues within the context in which they are raised in our analysis below.” slip op. at 11

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

    “The record supports Patent Owner’s argument that Mestas’s batteries are much too large to fit within a ring form factor, and “Mestas’s batteries, layout, and other components . . . would have to be scaled down 5 to 10 times to be appropriately sized for a finger worn ring.” Resp. 64 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Dr. Anthony’s cross-examination testimony at Ex. 2021, 313:12). Moreover, we do not credit Dr. Anthony’s testimony that miniaturization of the battery would have been “trivial to implement.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 242. Dr. Anthony admitted on cross-examination that it would not have been within the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art to design a smaller version of Mestas’s battery, and that such a person would need to procure a battery of the appropriate size and specifications for implementation in a finger-ring from a battery manufacturer. Ex. 2021, 315:9–318:9. Yet Dr. Anthony had not ascertained, for purposes of his testimony, whether there was a battery available in 2013 that was appropriate to fit within the inlay space of the modified version of Schröder’s finger-ring that he and Petitioner allege would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at that time. Id. at 321:5–10. Further, we credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that Dr. Anthony’s testimony fails to consider the differences in power requirements between Mestas and Schröder or to account for the constraints of such a substantially smaller form factor in Schröder’s finger-ring as compared to Mestas’s wrist device. Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 159–160. Although large curved batteries suitable for use in a wrist band or other larger wearable device, such as shown in Mestas, were known at the time of the ’178 patent, we also have evidence that prior art “finger ring wearables up to the ’178 patent had used ‘coin’ type batteries.” Id. at 66 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶ 161). We credit Dr. Mercier’s testimony that a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to a coin type battery for the necessary power requirements of Schröder’s device. Ex. 2018 ¶ 161. Indeed, this testimony is consistent with the other art of record that consistently shows the use of flat batteries in finger-ring devices, often stacked above and protruding from the general ring shape of the device. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Niwa), Figs. 22, 28; Ex. 2025 (Asada ’701 patent), Fig. 4; Ex. 1035 (Rhee), Figs. 7-1, 8-1, 8-2; Ex. 1037 (Asada article), Fig. 9; Ex. 1034 (Asada ’199 patent), Fig. 2; Ex. 1028 (Kimura), Fig. 24; Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 61–70. In fact, Oura’s first-generation ring design, released in 2015, used a Superbowl ring-type design, with the battery and other components mounted on top of the ring. Ex. 2034; Ex. 2018 ¶ 71. Based on these findings, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify Schröder’s finger-ring to place a curved battery between the internal and external housing components in light of the teachings in Mestas. Thus, Petitioner has not met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claim 3 of the ’178 patent is unpatentable over Schröder and Mestas.” slip op. at 38

  Patent outcomesUS 11,868,178 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: Goldenberg anticipates or renders claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 obvious, and Goldenberg with Cruz-Hernandez renders claims 7, 14, and 20 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Because we discern no dispositive difference between the parties’ proposals, and neither party has argued that the choice between the two would affect the outcome,6 we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8

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

    “to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17

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

    “To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 18

  Patent outcomesUS 10,627,907 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,627,907
• Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sitnet, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00530 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board denied the contingent motion to amend proposing substitute claims 17–32.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyOther

    “iv. Claim 1 Conclusion Based on the complete record presented, Petitioner has shown that Gage teaches all limitations of claim 1. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Gage. v. Independent claim 8 Independent claim 8 recites a method of “providing situation related information to a situation authority via a situational network,” wherein the method comprises “receiving, by a participant device, a roll call query soliciting a reply related to a status of a participant based on the participant being determined, by the situation authority, to be geographically proximate to the situation,” “receiving, by the participant device, a selection of a status response from the participant,” and “sending the status response to the central authority, wherein the status response is included in a roll call list.” Ex. 1001, 34:46–57. Petitioner generally refers to its contentions with respect to claim 1. Pet. 34–36. In particular, Petitioner contends that Gage teaches a subscriber device that communicates a status indicator to the disaster response system through a subscriber status reporting system that implements a “situational network” configured for use during disasters. Id. at 34 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 19, 25). Petitioner additionally contends that Gage’s “disaster response system” is a “situation authority” because the disaster response system detects an occurrence of a disaster affecting a region, receives and aggregates information related to the disaster, and then provides the information to various participants in the network. Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 8–9, 21, 36, 45; Ex. 1003 ¶ 104). With respect to the “situational network” limitation, Patent Owner” slip op. at 39

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

    “1. “situational network” (claims 1, 8, 13) Patent Owner points out that the district court has already construed” slip op. at 12

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

    “viii. Ground 1 Conclusion In light of the above analysis, we determine that Petitioner’s evidence” slip op. at 46

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, deniedDenied

    “c. Conclusion on Petitioner’s Patentability Challenges based on Obviousness for Proposed Substitute Claims For the above reasons, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of evidence that the subject matter of proposed substitute claims 17–32 would have been unpatentable. IV. CONCLUSION9 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has shown by a” slip op. at 82

  Patent outcomesUS 9,877,345 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 101 eligibility§ 103 obviousnesscites Alice · Mayo · Bilski · Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,877,345
• Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Capalik and King.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner argued that we should not institute both petitions. Paper 8, 1–5. Patent Owner argued that the challenged claims are not long and Petitioner’s concerns about the construction of “association” in limitation 1(b) are “contrived.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner could have addressed all of the challenged claims in one petition. Id. Noting that both the ’70 petition and the instant Petition challenge all claims of the ’872 patent, Patent Owner argued that the number of claims challenged does not necessitate multiple petitions. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner also argued that Petitioner could have waited until closer to the statutory due the claim language “association” in the related district court proceeding. Id. at 4–5. Considering the facts holistically, we determine the totality of the circumstances here supports Petitioner’s position that two petitions are warranted. Petitioner has challenged a large number of claims directed to complex subject matter. And the task of challenging those claims is complicated by the potential for Patent Owner to argue for a narrow construction of “association” in limitation 1(b). Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner would not have needed to file multiple petitions if it had waited longer to file a petition is not persuasive. Paper 8, 4–5. Patent Owner does not explain why a petitioner should be encouraged to delay the filing of its petition. See id. And the parties appear to agree that Patent Owner has not weighed in on whether “association” should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Prelim. Reply. 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 8. The present circumstances, considered as a whole, warrant two petitions challenging the claims of the ’872 patent.” slip op. at 10

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience. A POSITA would also have had a working knowledge of software security analysis and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11

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

    “We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 9,954,872
• Slack Technologies, LLC. / Salesforce, Inc. v. Wrinkl, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13

  • Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner

    “Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther

    “reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,973,731
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Ouraring, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Dec 6, 2024 · PGR2024-00030 · APJ Elizabeth M Roesel · PGR · Institution

  Instituted PGR of claims 1–10 and 12–18; Petitioner met the institution threshold for claim 1 based on obviousness over Schröder.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner

    “In applying § 325(d), we use a two-part framework: (1) whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office or presented to the Office; and (2) if either condition of the first part of the framework is satisfied, whether the petitioner has demonstrated that the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of challenged claims. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 8 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) (precedential). We also consider the non-exclusive factors set forth in Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG, IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) (precedential in relevant part), which “provide useful insight into how to apply the framework” under § 325(d). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 9. Those non-exclusive factors include: (a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination; (b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination; (c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection; (d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art; (e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and (f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art At this stage of the proceeding, there is no dispute about the level of ordinary skill in the art. Based on the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had a four-year degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, biomedical engineering, optical engineering, or related field of study, and two years of experience in academia or industry studying or developing physiological monitoring devices such as non-invasive biosensors. A POSITA would have been familiar with sensor system design and signal experience, and vice versa. Ex. 1002 ¶ 21. We find that the level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated above, is consistent with the level of technical understanding and competence reflected in the ’178 Patent Specification and the asserted prior art references.” slip op. at 16

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

    “as would be used by a district court to construe a claim in a civil action involving the validity or infringement of a patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.200(b). Under that standard, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history of record. Id.; Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–19 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365–66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with the parties that it is not necessary for us to provide an express construction for any claim term for purposes of determining whether to institute a post-grant review. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 25.” slip op. at 17

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “Petitioner relies on Dr. Anthony’s testimony that a POSITA would have understood Figures 6–8 as showing a cavity as recited in claim 1 and the battery must be arranged within that cavity because “[o]therwise, if the battery did not fit within the ‘finger-ring,’ the ‘finger-ring’ either has (1) a battery that sticks out or is exposed to the environment or (2) a wired connection to power its components, which is contrary to the intent of having a portable, wearable device.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 166. Dr. Anthony opines that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the battery’s location within the cavity is the ‘first portion’ of the cavity because the battery necessarily occupies space in the cavity.” Id. ¶ 168. Such testimony, when viewed along with the rest of Petitioner’s showing, provides sufficient basis for institution.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,868,178
• Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Identitii LimitedInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00593 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution

  Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We determine that the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–2 and 4–20 are unpatentable over Kennedy and Kurani-816. 2. Ground 2 — Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago Claim 3 depends from claim 1. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 would have been obvious over Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Patent Owner. We are not persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to a POSITA, based on the disclosures of Kennedy and Kurani-816, to store a digital title in memory 228 of processing server 102 for the purpose of record keeping. See Ex. 2013 ¶ 91. Kennedy discloses that processing server 102 includes a memory 228 for storing data used to perform its function, such as encryption keys, algorithms, and application programs. Ex. 1033 ¶ 46. Kennedy does not disclose memory 228 being a document store for record keeping of transaction messages or other transaction data. See id. In Kennedy, a private blockchain 206 stores data record 208 containing the transaction data. See e.g., id. ¶¶ 48–51; Fig. 2. Kurani-816 discloses digital titles that are specific to an asset and not to a particular financial transaction. Ex. 1034, 3:13–15. The digital titles are stored in a database at a digital title company and provided to the seller or buyer during a transaction. See e.g., id. at 6:34–9:7. Kurani-816 does not disclose transmitting the digital title to a financial transaction processing server, like processing server 102. Id. Thus, neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 teaches transmitting documents pertaining to a financial transaction and a token corresponding to a financial transaction to identify the document to a first document store, as required by claim elements 1 and 6. For the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 would have been obvious to a POSITA over Kennedy and Kurani-816.” slip op. at 19

  • Parallel petitionsNot reached

    “Because we have denied institution in IPR2024-00590 and deny institution in this proceeding based on the patentability merits, we do not need to reach the issue of whether both Petitions should be instituted.” slip op. at 3

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached

    “patent applications, including one filed on August 14, 2015. Ex. 1001, code (30). Petitioner asserts that the ’413 patent is not entitled to priority to August 14, 2015 because the provisional applications do not provide written description support for certain claim terms. Pet. 6–15. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 20, n.7. As both Kennedy and Kurani-816 were filed after August 14, 2015 (see Ex. 1033, code (22); Ex. 1034, code (22)), if the ’413 patent is entitled to priority to August 14, 2015, then neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 is available as prior art. We do not need to reach this issue because, regardless of whether Kennedy and Kurani-816 are available as prior art, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Kennedy and Kurani-816 as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,984,413
• I4f Licensing NV v. Vilox ABInstitution denied
  PTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00602 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Miller or obvious over Miller alone or Miller and Roy.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

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

    “Considering all of the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner insufficiently supports its position that Miller discloses a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface. Petitioner does not cite any text in Miller that discloses a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface. E.g., Pet. 7–8, 14–23. Instead, Petitioner relies on Miller’s Figure 3 as allegedly showing a curved horizontal locking surface. E.g., id. at 15–18, 21–23. We do not find that Miller’s Figure 3 shows a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface in the location identified by Petitioner, i.e., the location of the curved red arrow that Petitioner added to Miller’s Figure 3. E.g., Pet. 15, 22. Even assuming that this portion of Miller’s drawing shows a very subtle rise (which we do not find), it does not show clearly a curve, as opposed to, for example, a slightly inclined flat surface. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that, at the point of Petitioner’s curved red arrow, Figure 3’s overlapping representation of the tongue’s lower surface and the groove’s upper surface prevents distinguishing one from the other. Prelim. Resp. 45 (“In Figure 3, the lines merge so that no conclusion can reasonably be made by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as to whether a locking recess is present in the groove or not.”). Accordingly, Figure 3 does not allow discerning a curve in the groove’s upper surface at the point identified by Petitioner.” slip op. at 17

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

    “Additionally, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to configure Miller’s panel with a curved horizontal locking surface, in addition to an inclined horizontal locking surface, as required by independent claim 1. Pet. 34–39; Prelim. Resp. 54. In support of its argument that it was well-known to use curved locking surfaces, Petitioner provides a vague string cite of evidence that dubiously includes Miller (which has not been shown to disclose a curved horizontal locking surface). Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–26, 56; Ex. 1006, Figs. 2–4, 9, and 10 and associated description; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1005; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011; Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013; Ex. 1014). Moreover, to the extent Petitioner is correct that it was well-known and easy to configure a panel with a curved locking surface, that may show that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have added a curved horizontal locking surface to Miller’s panel. But that does not show sufficiently that such a modification would have been obvious, as it does not demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Miller’s cladding panel to add a curved horizontal locking surface. See Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additionally, to the extent that Petitioner is correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a strength benefit of having two locking recesses, that does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a curved locking surface, as opposed to, for example, another substantially planar locking surface like the one at Miller’s contact point 42. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1004, 5:19–34. And Petitioner does not identify, much less substantiate, any other reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had for combining a curved locking surface with an inclined horizontal locking surface in Miller’s cladding panel. Pet. 36–39. Because Petitioner has not persuasively addressed claim 1’s requirement that its dual locking recesses include one with a curved horizontal locking surface, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Miller. E.g., Pet. 7–8, 34–39. Additionally, this deficiency is not remedied in Petitioner’s challenges to dependent claims 2–15 based on Miller. E.g., Pet. 34, 40–50. Accordingly, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that dependent claims 2–15 would have been obvious over Miller.” slip op. at 23

  § 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,421,425
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 11, 2024 · IPR2022-01528 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 15–19 are unpatentable: the Board found claims 15–16 anticipated or obvious and claims 17–19 obvious; it did not reach the Yong-Xavier-Cason ground for claim 17.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We find that the ’435 patent and the cited prior art references reflect the appropriate level of skill at the time of the claimed invention and that the level of appropriate skill reflected by those sources is consistent with the definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Accordingly, for purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s asserted level of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 12

  • Expert testimonyDecided for patent owner

    “technologies, [and he admits] that his only retail technology experience is limited to MBA case studies from the early 1990s.” Pet. Reply 3 (citing Ex. 1022, 15:20–22, 16:3–7, 17:22–23; Ex. 2010). Based on this, Petitioner advances that we “should afford little weight to Dr. Williams’ testimony.” Id. Patent Owner counters that we should afford full weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony. PO Sur-reply 2. Patent Owner contends that Dr. Williams meets Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Id. According to Patent Owner, “Dr. Williams surpasses the education requirement” and meets the experience requirements. Id. at 3. Addressing Petitioner’s concerns about retail technology experience, Patent Owner asserts that “Dr. Williams testified that his MBA curriculum contained coursework that included study of POS systems, particularly though case studies.” Id. (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 3; Ex. 1022 16:3–7). “This is precisely the ‘more education’ in the [person of ordinary skill in the art] definition that can ‘supplement practical experience,’” Patent Owner argues. Id. (citing Pet. 12). Patent Owner persuades us that Petitioner’s concerns regarding Dr. Williams’s retail technology and knowledge and experience are not a basis for affording less weight to Dr. Williams’s testimony.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument, the ’435 patent’s Specification supports Petitioner’s position. As Petitioner argues, the Specification’s disclosure that “[u]ser identification information may include a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” conveys that “a username, a password, [or] both a username and password” is a short, non-exhaustive list of user identification information according to the ’435 patent. Ex. 1001, 6:2–4 (emphasis added). This comports with the plain meaning of “user identification information,” which seemingly would refer to information that identifies a user. Consistent with this, the claim language does not convey any meaning of “user identification information” other than its plain meaning. See, e.g., id. at 24:7–9. Accordingly, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s suggestion that limitation 16a’s “user identification information” requires a username, a password, or both. PO Resp. 72; PO Sur-reply 30. Instead, we conclude that “user identification information” encompasses information that identifies a user.” slip op. at 16

  • BurdenPetitioner expert creditedUnpatentable

    “Weighing all of the parties’ arguments and evidence, we find Petitioner has shown that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j’s actions by the same server, specifically payment server 130. For example, Petitioner persuades us that Fletchall discloses payment server 130 performing the actions of limitations 15h and 15i: “retrieving . . . payment information to complete the transaction” and “completing . . . the transaction based on the payment information.” Ex. 1001, 23:43–24:2; Pet. 24–26 (citing Ex. 1008, 4:35–49, 11:3–12, 12:42–45, 13:9–14, 13:45–47; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 199–204, 206–208, 210; Ex. 1001, 10:59–11:3, Fig. 2B). Petitioner’s evidence also shows that Fletchall discloses limitation 15j’s “transmitting . . . a confirmation receipt to the mobile phone in response to completion of payment for the transaction” by payment server 130 on its own. Ex. 1001, 24:3–5; Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 213–214). For example, Petitioner cites Fletchall’s disclosure of at least one embodiment in which “the electronic receipt is generated by the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module (106b) of the mobile POS application (106).” Ex. 1008, 9:26–29; Pet. 27. Thus, Petitioner demonstrates that Fletchall discloses performing all of limitations 15h–15j by payment server 130. This showing is not diminished by Patent Owner’s observation that the Petition mentions Fletchall’s product database 121 when discussing limitation 15j. PO Sur-reply 27 n.12 (citing Pet. 26–27). In the passages Petitioner cites, Fletchall contains multiple, alternative disclosures about creating and sending a receipt. Ex. 1008, 9:26–32, 11:57–61; Pet. 27. For example, Fletchall contains (1) a disclosure that a receipt can be generated and transmitted by payment server 130 on its own (Ex. 1008, 9:26–29) and (2) an alternate disclosure that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the product database (121) in cooperation with the payment server (130) and provided to the transaction module 106(b) of the mobile POS application (106)” (id. at 9:29–32). As Dr. Shamos notes, Fletchall also discloses that “[t]he electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server.” Ex. 1008, 11:19–20; Ex. 1002 ¶ 213. Immediately following this disclosure, Fletchall describes handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 and product database 121 working in cooperation as an alternative to handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own: The electronic receipt may be generated by the payment server, by the product database in cooperation with the payment server and/or by a mobile application installed on the mobile device directly. Once generated, the electronic receipt may be sent to the mobile device to be stored in a memory or in a storage device of the mobile device. Ex. 1008, 11:19–25 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s reliance on Fletchall’s disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 on its own supports Petitioner’s case, regardless of Fletchall’s alternate disclosure of handling the electronic receipt by payment server 130 in cooperation with product database 121.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435
• Bj’S Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 10, 2024 · IPR2022-01564 · APJ Patrick R Scanlon · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as anticipated by Keith; the Board did not reach the alternative obviousness ground over Hanson and Keith.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner

    “claims of the later-filed application must be supported by the written description in the parent ‘in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.’” Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). “[T]he hallmark of written description is disclosure,” and the test “is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date” of that application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (citing Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). “[T]he test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. But, “[i]t is not sufficient for purposes of the written description requirement of [35 U.S.C.] § 112 that the disclosure, when combined with the knowledge in the art, would lead one to speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have envisioned, but failed to disclose.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.” slip op. at 33

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

    “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 Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Moreover, “[b]ecause the hallmark of anticipation is prior invention, the prior art reference—in order to anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102—must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document, but must also disclose those elements ‘arranged as in the claim.’” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Whether a reference anticipates is assessed from the perspective of an ordinarily skilled artisan. See Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“‘[T]he dispositive question regarding anticipation [i]s whether one skilled in the art would reasonably understand or infer from the [prior art reference’s] teaching’ that every claim element was disclosed in that single reference.”). slip op. at 13

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableDecided for petitioner

    “preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2022). “In an IPR, the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (2012) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,803,435 unpatentable
  § 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,803,435

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.