• Uatp IP LLC v. Slick Slide LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 2, 2026 · PGR2024-00054 · APJ Brian D Range · PGR · Final written decision

  Claims 22–26 are unpatentable based on obviousness; claims 1–17, 27, and 28 were not shown unpatentable. Patent Owner’s motion to terminate was denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “1. Mesh Layer Petitioner contends “no formal claim construction is necessary in this” slip op. at 13

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

    “5. Analysis On this complete record, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments do” slip op. at 31

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

    “form of nylon and some form of Teflon (and possible combinations thereof) having the specific coefficient of friction range given in limitation [1c] breaks down, because the building blocks of the obviousness argument are not sufficiently identified in Phillips alone, nor in the supporting testimony. Accordingly, we determine that Petitioner’s arguments and evidence fail to show that Phillips renders the challenged claims obvious. 6. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–4, 6, and 7 would have been anticipated by or obvious in view of Phillips.” slip op. at 33

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner

    “2. Products and Nexus We first consider the issue of whether certain evidence relied upon by” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 11,998,854 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · Graham · Nautilus
  Patents in suitUS 11,998,854
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other

    “Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8

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

    “We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10

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

    “We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,886,774
• Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–10, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable; claims 4–5, 11–13, and 19–21 are not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner

    “We agree with Petitioner that the ’690 patent does not limit the term “probe” to channel assessment. Pet. Reply 2–4. Reviewing the intrinsic evidence, the “Technical Field” of the ’690 patent states that “some embodiments relate to channel assessment probes,” implying others do not. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. The ’690 patent further states that “receiver determined probes may be used in a variety of applications” including to “discover hidden nodes” and “off-site network diagnosis.” Id. at 2:20–27. In addition, the ’690 patent states that probes may be used for “network maintenance procedures,” to “replicate a potential problem, reach or discover a distant or previously undetected node on the network, or assist with network admissions procedures.” Id. at 4:25–38. Turning to the claims of the ’690 patent, the evidence of record does not establish that the independent claims recite anything unique or specific to channel assessment (although their scope covers that purpose). Furthermore, dependent claim 7 of the ’690 patent recites that the “probe” is used to diagnose a network problem, and dependent claim 13 recites that the “probe” is used to identify a hidden node. Restricting the independent claims to probes used solely for channel assessment would be contradictory to these dependent claims. Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (construction of term in independent claims should not render dependent claims superfluous or lacking scope).” slip op. at 20

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that a “physical layer probe” is “a probe that relates to the physical layer.” The term does not appear per se in the specification of the ’960 patent, nor in the prosecution history, but only in claims 9, 17, and 19. However, the term “physical layer” is well-known and is the first layer in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) network model. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 35–40, 69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49–50. The physical layer is used to transmit digital bits over a network, and defines the timing, mechanical, and physical network characteristics required for transmitting the data bits. Hence, a “physical layer probe” is a probe that relates to the physical layer. We need not, and do not, construe the term further to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime, Vivid Techs., supra. Having decided proper constructions for the disputed terms, we proceed in our analysis to consider the parties’ arguments concerning the challenge grounds. In the following sections, we apply the plain meaning of the claim terms, and as necessary, specify what the plain meanings are.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA8 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’690 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 25

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

    “Hence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderant evidence that the Ranging Request (“probe request”) message includes CID and SS MAC address and other parameters (“first plurality of parameters”) which at least specify the CID (“content payload of the probe”) and the SS MAC address (“second node”) of the Ranging Response.12 We thus proceed to consider Petitioner’s contentions for the remaining limitations of claim 1, which are undisputed, and determine that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE-802.16.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,284,690 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,284,690
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 37–70 are unpatentable: claims 37–41, 47, 50–56, 58–59, 60–62, 64–65, and 70 as anticipated by Alden; the remaining challenged claims as obvious over Alden and the listed combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). 3 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/70538 A2 (Exhibit 1010). 4 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 01/01038 (Exhibit 1006). 5 U.S. Patent No. 4,970,628 (Exhibit 1007). 6 U.S. Patent No. 6,144,158 (Exhibit 1008). 7 U.S Patent No. 6,049,749 (Exhibit 1009). 8 PCT Patent App. Pub. No. WO 02/04247 A1 (Exhibit 1011). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (PO Resp. 4), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Claim Construction We construe claims using the standard that would be applied in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), giving terms their ordinary and customary meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the specification and prosecution history. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). The Petition asserts that all claim terms should be given their “ordinary and customary meaning.” See Pet. 8. Patent Owner also proposes that the claim terms be given their ordinary meaning, and identifies the “ordinary meaning” for the terms “identify,” “turn,” and “curve,” which we discuss in our analysis below. We otherwise find that that no express claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner

    “With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21

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

    “how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24

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

    “Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,567,343
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoInstituted
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . 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) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2

  • BurdenMixed

    “Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8

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

    “Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed

    “Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,953,641
• Wolfspeed, Inc. / Ideal Industries Lighting, LLC D/B/A Cree Lighting et al. v. Cao Lighting, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 28, 2023 · IPR2022-00847 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28–30, 32–36, 40, 42–44, 47–49, 52, 53, 56–59, 62, 63, 65–68, 71–73, 77, 78, 81, 82, 85, 86, and 88–91 are unpatentable over Begemann, Krames, and Allen; claim 41 is …

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “Patent Owner’s argument is unpersuasive because the Krames declaration addresses the Patent Owner Response and is relevant to the issues at hand. We start with an important observation: claim 21 (the only independent claim at issue) is an apparatus claim; the claim is directed to a “semiconductor light source.” Ex. 1001, 9:52. One requirement of this apparatus is that it comprise “at least one semiconductor chip” (id. at 10:1) where the “at least one semiconductor chip is a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts.” Id. at EPRC, 1:34–36. As we explain when addressing claim construction, infra, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” as meaning “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” See Section III.D, infra (emphasis added). Because of these recitations, Petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the prior art teaches or suggests a semiconductor chip “capable of emitting light greater than about 40 milliwatts.” As explained herein, we determine that in the Petition, Petitioner met this burden by establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the Krames reference teaches an LED chip that has this capability. Pet. 54 (quoting Ex. 1008, 10). Notably, claim 21 does not require actual operation of anything at greater than 40 milliwatts because claim 21 is not a method claim. Petitioner never had a burden of establishing a method of running the Krames reference’s LED at this power output within a semiconductor light source.” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We agree with Patent Owner that the challenged claims relate to light fixtures, LED packaging, and LED chip layer structure and that the ’961 patent claims reflect “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Resp. 19. The prior art of record, for example, Begemann, likewise reflects “a hybrid of the light bulb art and semiconductor art.” Id. (quoting Pet. 28). Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Lebby, agreed that a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to be “familiar with thermal issues.” Ex. 2015, 26:15– 28:16. While Petitioner’s proposed description of a person having ordinary skill in the art could, in some instances, be sufficient to qualify a person as having ordinary skill, Patent Owner’s proposal is a more complete and accurate description of the level of skill commensurate with the scope of the challenged ’961 patent claims. Patent Owner’s description appears consistent with the prior art and patent specification before us and is supported by witness testimony. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill). For the purpose of this Decision, we adopt Patent Owner’s description. We further note that the outcome of our decision would be the same under either party’s asserted skill level.” slip op. at 19

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

    “particularly relevant.” Resp. 14–15. First, Patent Owner argues that “a light emitting diode (LED) chip configured to output light at greater than about 40 milliwatts” means “at least one LED chip is capable of emitting light greater 9 Petitioner states that “Patent Owner thus contends the recited ‘reflective layers’ can include transparent or semi-transparent layers that exhibit some reflectivity (e.g., SiO2) or an interface between two layers (e.g., the buffer and substrate layers) that exhibit differing indices of refraction.” Pet. 20. Patent Owner frames this as being Petitioner’s “novel construction” (Resp. 16), but Petitioner does not expressly endorse this Patent Owner contention. than about 40 milliwatts.” Resp. 14–15. Patent Owner notes that a district court already adopted this construction and notes that the “LED chip” includes LEDs, LED modules, and LED arrays but excludes laser chips, laser modules, and VCSEL chips. Id. (citing Ex. 2003, 15–18). Petitioner argues that the phrase “needs no construction” and that Petitioner’s grounds meet this construction. Reply 1–2. We adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction because it is well supported by the record including the District Court’s reasoning. Ex. 2003, 15–18. slip op. at 20

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

    “It is unnecessary to construe any other claim terms in this Decision because none of the parties’ disputes turn on the meaning of other claim terms. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 22

  Patent outcomesUS 6,465,961 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 6,465,961
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Acorn Semi, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 9, 2022 · IPR2020-01207 · APJ John R Kenny · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16 are unpatentable as anticipated by Grupp ’483; claims 11, 12, and 14 were not shown unpatentable because Grupp ’483 is not prior art to them.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner. “[A p]etitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g., to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide5 73; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Here, Petitioner’s breadth challenge to the written description support for the genus of “the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of 5 Consolidated Office Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/consolidated-trial-practice-guide-november-2019. titanium” recited in claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14–16, was part of Petitioner’s prima facie case, which could have, and should have, been presented with the Petition. Thus, Petitioner could not properly wait until its Reply to specifically challenge the description support for the breadth of that class in the pre-2011 priority applications. See Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1330–31 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Heath, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we will not consider the breadth challenge to a metal oxide comprising an oxide of titanium that Petitioner presented for the first time in its Reply. As for the breadth challenge presented in the Petition—that the pre- 2011 priority applications do not describe the breadth of the class of metal oxides, that challenge is inapplicable here because claims 11, 12, and 14 narrow the recited class to comprising an oxide of titanium, which is a far narrower class. Dr. Schubert provides examples of numerous metal oxides that do not comprise oxides of titanium. Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 94 (hafnium oxide and zirconium oxide); Ex. 1053, Schubert Reply Decl. ¶¶ 18, 19 (see the compounds identified in that paragraph beyond titanium dioxide), 20. Petitioner does not dispute that the pre-2011 priority applications disclose a species within the scope of the recited genus. Pet. 18–22. To the contrary, Petitioner relies on one of the pre-2011 priority applications (Grupp ’483) as disclosing a species (with TiO2) as proof that claims 11, 12, and 14 are anticipated. See id. at 40–44. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has not proven that the pre-2011 priority applications fail to describe the genus of the metal oxide of the interface layer comprises an oxide of titanium. Therefore, Petitioner has not proven that Patent Owner is not entitled to the benefit of the pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14 due to a lack of written description support. Accordingly, Petitioner has not proven that Grupp ’483 is prior art for those claims.” slip op. at 27

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedPriority date awardedMixed

    “2. Analysis We agree with Petitioner that the pre-2011 priority applications do not describe the recited genus. To support a claim to a genus, a specification must disclose “either a representative number of species falling within the scope of the genus or structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can ‘visualize or recognize’ the members of the genus.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Here, the recited genus is an interface layer comprising a metal oxide. Ex. 1001, 18:45–52. It is undisputed that the only species the pre- 2011 priority applications disclose is TiO2, as set forth in the following passage: Two other properties of the dielectric deserve mention. First is the property of the height of the barrier compared to the semiconductor conduction band (for electrons). In making the barrier thinner than a silicide barrier, the tradeoff may be a higher tunnel barrier (e.g., 2 eV for nitride, compared with about half the gap of 0.6 eV for silicide). Spacer layers may be used with lower barriers (e.g., TiO2 has a barrier of less than 1 eV). Nevertheless, even with the higher barrier to electrons, the present inventors have determined that the resistance can still be one hundred times lower than a contact to silicon with a silicide barrier. Id. at 18:1–11 (emphasis added). The pre-2011 priority applications incorporate by reference U.S.” slip op. at 17

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

    “As set forth below, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claims 1–6, 8–10, 15, and 16. a. Claim 1 Petitioner argues that Grupp ’483 discloses an electrical junction, citing Grupp 483’s disclosure that “the present invention provides an electrical junction.” Pet. 27 (citing Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 3:44–47). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses a region in a semiconductor substrate by describing a source or drain of a transistor. Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 110). According to Petitioner, Grupp ’483 discloses a metal electrical contact to said region by describing “an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “said region being electrically connected to said metal electrical contact through said interface layer” by describing “the present invention provides an electrical device in which an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor and is configured to depin the Fermi level of the semiconductor while still permitting current flow between the metal and the semiconductor . . . .” Id. at 29 (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–26) (emphasis omitted). Petitioner further argues that Grupp ’483 discloses “said interface layer comprising a metal oxide and a semiconductor oxide” by describing an interface layer that includes (1) a passivation layer, which can be a semiconductor oxide; and (2) a separation layer, which can be titanium dioxide, a metal oxide. Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1022, Schubert Decl. ¶ 114). Petitioner further asserts that Grupp ’483 discloses “being in contact with said region in the semiconductor substrate and said metal electrical contact” by describing “an interface layer is disposed between and in contact with a metal and a semiconductor.” Id. (quoting Ex. 1021, Grupp ’483, 4:21–23) (emphasis omitted). After reviewing Petitioner’s arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has proven that Grupp ’483 anticipates claim 1.” slip op. at 40

  • ExcludeOther

    “We dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot in light of our determination regarding Petitioner’s written description challenge to Patent Owner’s benefit of its pre-2011 priority applications for claims 11, 12, and 14. In particular, Petitioner relies on the testimony at issue to support its belated challenge to the breadth of written description support in the pre- 2011 priority applications for the class of comprising an oxide of titanium that is recited by those claims. Reply Br. 7–12. Because we decided not to consider that belated challenge (see Section III.A.1.b above), the Motion to Exclude is moot.” slip op. at 47

  Patent outcomesUS 10,090,395 mixed
  § 102 anticipationcites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,090,395
• Cradlepoint, Inc. / Sierra Wireless, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel International S.A.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 18, 2022 · IPR2020-01102 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 15–20, 30, and 31 are unpatentable as obvious over Qualcomm and TS25.322; claims 6–14 and 21–29 were not shown unpatentable. Substitute claims 32–35, 45–49, 59, and 60 were denied.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have a degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience in telecommunication, including familiarity with cellular communications technologies,” that this person “would also have familiarity with WCDMA,” and that “[t]his definition is approximate,” as “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 30–34). We adopted Petitioner’s proposal at institution. See Decision 7–8. In its Response, Patent Owner “proposes that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—August 23, 2005—in the relevant art would be one with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field” and that “[a] combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” PO Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). Patent Owner asserts that “[a]lthough [its] proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties do not argue that the formulation of the level of skill in the art affects any issue in this case, and we maintain our adoption of Petitioner’s formulation, which we find to be generally consistent with the disclosures of the ’443 patent and the prior art, and which includes that “more education may substitute for industry experience or vice versa.”” slip op. at 9

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

    “length indicator” to mean “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Prelim. Resp. 9–10. We agreed with Patent Owner that the specification’s description of a single length indicator that conveys both types of information and the arguments made during prosecution that the claims required a “single LI” or “the same length indicator” to include both types of information were sufficient to support a construction that required a single length indicator to include both pieces of information. See Decision 9. Although it did not propose a construction in the Petition, Petitioner now argues that “the claim language uses the indefinite article ‘a’ to modify ‘length indicator’” and that “[p]recedent is well settled that ‘an indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase ‘comprising.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). While we agree with Petitioner that “a” may mean “one or more,” that simply means that the addition of more length indicators would not be excluded from the scope of the claim. Petitioner does not explain, and we do not see, how that affects the meaning of “length indicator” itself and, for the reasons argued by Patent Owner and adopted at institution, we maintain the earlier construction of “length indicator” as “a single length indicator that provides two pieces of information: (1) that a first data octet of the protocol data unit is a first octet of a first service data unit; and (2) that at least one other octet of the protocol data unit is the last octet of another service data unit.” See Decision 8; Prelim. Resp. 9–12; PO Resp. 10–13. slip op. at 11

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

    “We also observe that, although Patent Owner characterizes this issue as one based on “teaching away” (see, e.g., PO Resp. 3; PO Sur-Reply 15– 16), the argument is not about teaching away because Patent Owner is not pointing us to any specific teaching in the prior art, or elsewhere, that would counsel against the proposed modification. Patent Owner is not arguing that something in the prior art disparages or discourages the use of one bit of an LI as a flag. Instead, Patent Owner is arguing that one of skill in the art would not pursue the Qualcomm approach because to do so would mean accepting other drawbacks that would flow from the use of the flag. In any event, we credit Patent Owner’s evidence that dedicating a bit of the LI for use as a flag would reduce the length that could be represented by the remaining bits of the LI and cause SDUs to be divided into more PDUs. See, e.g., Ex. 2005 ¶¶ 30, 32. However, the record also shows that use of the flag would provide a specific advantage, as described in Qualcomm. See Ex. 1006, 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 253. This is the motivation advanced by Petitioner which, notably, Patent Owner does not dispute. We conclude that, even if Patent Owner is correct that the proposal in Qualcomm would reduce the permitted PDU size from 128 octets to 64, the change would merely be something a skilled artisan would need to weigh against the advantages that the Qualcomm technique would provide. Patent Owner may be correct that the reduced lengths would, in the end, render the modified system unsuitable for certain applications or for adoption in a standard. That would not, however, make the modification nonobvious, particularly where the exact change proposed in the combination was suggested by individuals working in the field, as evidenced by Qualcomm itself.7 The record shows that at least some of those working in the field, at the time of the invention, believed that the advantages of Qualcomm’s approach would outweigh the reduced lengths.” slip op. at 20

  • BurdenMixed

    “In TS25.322, the value “0000000” is a predefined, special value used to indicate that “[t]he previous RLC PDU was exactly filled with the last segment of an RLC SDU and there is no ‘Length Indicator’ that indicates the end of the RLC SDU in the previous RLC PDU.” See Ex. 1005, 36–37. However, although Qualcomm specifically contemplates implementing its flag scheme by “[r]e-arrang[ing] special LI values as they are now coded on less number of bits” (Ex. 1006, 4), the Petition did not argue a combination that includes modification of the special LIs for the independent claims. Instead, Petitioner relied on Qualcomm’s proposal to modify ordinary LIs that indicate the end of SDUs. See, e.g., Pet. 71–72 (describing and illustrating modification of the LI that identified the end of SDU 1: “[t]he green modified LI indicates that a first data octet of PDU is a first octet of SDU1 and another octet of the PDU is the last octet of SDU1”); Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 261–262. Petitioner’s argument with respect to these claims is thus not consistent with the argument it advanced for the independent claims from which these claims depend. Petitioner cannot reasonably rely on one type of prior art LI as the “length indicator” of claim 1, but then shift to a different type of prior art LI when addressing the very same “length indicator” recited in a dependent claim. Moreover, Petitioner fails to explain how or why the special LI “0000000” that is used to indicate the layout of the previous PDU could reasonably be used to also indicate the layout of the current PDU in which the LI appears. For example, if the previous PDU did not meet the condition identified by the “0000000” special value, then the LI would not appear in the next PDU even if that next PDU had a first SDU that ended in that PDU. For these reasons, Petitioner has not provided sufficient explanation or argument to establish obviousness of claims 6 and 21.9” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 7,894,443 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,894,443

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.