• ROKU, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01054 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  Institution denied for claims 1–15 because Petitioner did not show Seet was prior art, defeating the reasonable-likelihood showing for every asserted obviousness ground.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2023). The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons given below, on this record, Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any one of claims 1–15 of the ’768 patent. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review of the ’768 patent.” slip op. at 2

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Patents / published applications (effective date, provisional support)Reference not prior artDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner fails to show that the full scope of claim 9 of Seet is described in the Seet provisional. Seet expressly defines the claim term “media,” stating that, as it is “used herein,” “media” includes audio, video, software, and pictures. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50 (“Media content may include one . . . of audio . . ., video . . ., software . . ., and pictures”). Such a statement provides a clear definition of the term “media” that includes video, software, and pictures, in addition to audio. In addition to the express definition, Seet elsewhere indicates that its media includes video and other non-audio signals and databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26 (“if the media stream 102 is a video broadcast, each media item may comprise a television show or segment, an advertisement, or any other type of video”), 42–46 (creating databases of “videos,” “faces,” and “files”), 49 (“any signal that contains repeating content over any broadcast medium can benefit from the procedure described herein.”). Accordingly, the use of media in claim 9 for its claimed “media content database” and “media stream[s]” also includes both audio and non-audio media.” slip op. at 14

  • Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateNot shown unpatentable

    “We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that Seet is prior art. Seet is not entitled to the benefit of its provisional filing date unless a claim in Seet has written description support in the Seet provisional. See Dynamic Drinkware, 800 F.3d at 1381–82. As the “‘hallmark’ of written description, . . . the disclosure must be considered as a whole, as the person of ordinary skill in the art would read it to determine if it reasonably conveys possession” of the claimed invention. Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., 111 F.4th 1358, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (citation and emphasis omitted).” slip op. at 12

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art [“POSITA”] at the critical time would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with at least two years of relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill should include persons lacking a formal degree but possessing considerable industry experience designing and implementing automated content recognition systems, and that such systems are the relevant industry experience. Prelim. Resp. 6–7. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, modified by the more inclusive standards of Patent Owner, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’768 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,510,768
• ROKU, Inc. v. Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 10, 2025 · IPR2024-01057 · APJ Michael T Cygan · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Roku did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–15 unpatentable; Seet was not shown to be prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Without the benefit of its provisional filing date, Seet, filed on February 17, 2005, is not prior art to the ’848 patent, having an uncontested benefit to the May 27, 2004 filing date of its provisional. Because each of Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of its unpatentability assertions. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, we conclude Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of claims 1–15. We determine that the record does not support institution. Accordingly, no inter partes review is instituted.” slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportPriority date, deniedDecided for patent owner

    “Petitioner fails to show that the full scope of claim 9 of Seet is described in the Seet provisional. Seet expressly defines the claim term “media,” stating that, as it is “used herein,” “media” includes audio, video, software, and pictures. Ex. 1006 ¶ 50 (“Media content may include one . . . of audio . . ., video . . ., software . . ., and pictures”). Such a statement provides a clear definition of the term “media” that includes video, software, and pictures, in addition to audio. In addition to the express definition, Seet elsewhere indicates that its media includes video and other non-audio signals and databases. See, e.g., Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 26 (“if the media stream 102 is a video broadcast, each media item may comprise a television show or segment, an advertisement, or any other type of video”), 42–46 (creating databases of “videos,” “faces,” and “files”), 49 (“any signal that contains repeating content over any broadcast medium can benefit from the procedure described herein.”). Accordingly, the use of media in claim 9 for its claimed “media content database” and “media stream[s]” also includes both audio and non-audio media. The disclosure of the Seet provisional, however, is more limited and defines the term media exclusively as audio. Ex. 1019, 4 (“Media will be defined as any streaming audio source in any form, be it radio, television, cable, satellite, internet stream, or the like.”). This definition does not include the full scope of “media” as that term is used in claim 9 of Seet because it does not include video, software, and pictures.” slip op. at 14

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “at the critical time would have had “a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent degree with at least two years of relevant industry experience, including in digital media content delivery.” Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 32). Patent Owner argues that the level of ordinary skill should include persons lacking a formal degree but possessing considerable industry experience designing and implementing automated content recognition systems, and that such systems are the relevant industry experience. Prelim. Resp. 6–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill, modified by the more inclusive standards of Patent Owner, as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’848 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Here, neither party sets forth any explicit claim construction. Pet. 14; Prelim. Resp. Although Patent Owner analyzes the term “media monitoring device” in its arguments (Preliminary Response 37–43), our ultimate determination on institution does not turn on that construction. We determine that no need exists to determine a particular construction for purposes of this institution decision, and instead construe the claims pursuant to § 42.100(b).” slip op. at 8

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipationcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,719,848
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00597 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9–10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “We also agree with Patent Owner that the charge cut-off voltage is not necessarily the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20. Rather, depending on the charging protocol used and when in the charging cycle the voltage is applied, the applied voltage could be higher than the battery voltage. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. For example, as discussed in more detail below with respect to the Uemura grounds, when fast charging using constant current is used and the charging rate is not slow, the applied voltage will be higher than the battery voltage when the constant current charging phase is stopped. Ex. 2006 ¶ 91; Ex. 2013. Likewise, during constant current/constant voltage charging, the applied voltage approximates the battery voltage only when the battery is nearly completely charged. Ex. 2013; Ex. 2006 ¶ 91. Thus, the applied voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the charge cut-off voltage. In view of the foregoing, we construe “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 as “the maximum value to which the battery is configured to be charged.” PO Resp. 18; Ex. 2008, 217:6–11; Pet. Reply 5. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments, however, we do not understand the phrase “configured to be charged” to necessarily represent a single voltage for the battery that is determined based on the structure and chemistry of the battery. Pet. Reply 4–5. Rather, the charge cut-off voltage is a selected potential, or voltage, of the battery or cell at the end of charging that is controlled by a circuit or device, such as a charger or control circuit within the battery. Ex. 1001, 9:50–55; Ex. 1048, 2, 7–8; Ex. 1008, 3:9–13. And, for the reasons discussed herein, the charge cut-off voltage may be, but is not necessarily, the same as the applied voltage during charging. PO Resp. 20.” slip op. at 15

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Apple Inc. v. RJ Technology LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 17, 2025 · IPR2023-01183 · APJ Jon B Tornquist · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 2–4 and 6–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Abe and Guyomard, with claims 9 and 10 also obvious over Iwaizono; claims 1 and 5 were not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Master’s degree in material science, chemical engineering, chemistry, or similar field with four years of experience designing testing, and building secondary lithium batteries.” Pet. 11 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of “(1) positive electrode materials, (2) negative electrode materials, (3) separators, (4) electrolytes, (5) charge-discharge parameters, and (6) protection circuits, as well as ‘battery failure modes’ such as plating and the formation of dendrites.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 50–51). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. Upon review of the prior art of record and the parties’ arguments, we adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the person of ordinary skill in the art as it is consistent with the disclosures of the ’641 patent and the prior art of record.” slip op. at 9

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

    “constructions. First, we agree with Petitioner that the ’641 patent indicates that the charge cut-off voltage selected for a particular battery need not be a fixed property of the battery or something that is set by the design and chemistry of the battery. Consistent with this conclusion, the ’641 patent discloses that a “charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage of the single lithium-ion cell within a range from 4.3 V to 5.8 V.” Ex. 1001, 9:50– 55. This strongly suggests that the charge cut-off voltage is controlled by the charger and is not necessarily an inherent property of the battery. Patent Owner contends that this is merely an unclaimed embodiment, but the relevant disclosure states that the charging device for the “present invention” may be any type of device “with the proviso that said charging device controls the charge cut-off voltage.” Id. at 9:50–53.” slip op. at 12

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

    “charge cut-off voltage “greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V” and calculating a specific or theoretic capacity “with a charge cut-off voltage limited to 4.2” (claim 1) or “with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V” (claim 5). Ex. 1001, 16:56–61, 17:6–11. Although the parties dispute the precise scope of these claim terms, the parties agree that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claims 1 and 5 refers to the potential of the battery as a whole (between the cathode and the anode), and not a half-cell voltage using lithium metal as a counter electrode.10 Tr. 17:1–3 (agreeing 10 With respect to the phrase “as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V,” the parties in fact appear to be in that the first use of “charge cut-off voltage” in claim 5 refers to a full-cell voltage); Sur-reply 5; PO Resp. 22. We need not further construe the claims to resolve the disputes between the parties. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”)).” slip op. at 16

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Given Mr. Juzkow’s unambiguous testimony that Uemura uses constant current charging that would stop when the applied voltage reached 11 The chart is reproduced from SAFT, Charging your lithium-ion batteries: 5 expert tips for a longer lifespan, (https://www.saft.com/energizing-iot/charging-your-lithium-ion-batteries-5-expert-tips-longerlifespan#:~: text=When%20the%20battery%20provides%20current,This%20restore s%20the%20battery's%20capacity). 4.3 V, as well as Dr. Yao’s persuasive testimony that Uemura’s constant charging rate is not slow, we credit the testimony of Dr. Yao that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the internal voltage to which the battery of Uemura was charged is less than 4.3 V. Ex. 2006 ¶ 119. In particular, Dr. Yao persuasively testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have believed that the charge cut-off voltage was no more than 4.2 V, and most likely equal to “about 4 V.” Id. ¶¶ 119–122. Petitioner argues that because the battery of Uemura is charged “to” a maximum voltage of 4.3 V, Uemura discloses the claimed charge cut-off voltage under either Petitioner’s or Patent Owner’s construction of the term. Pet. Reply 11–12 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 1044 ¶¶ 56–59). This argument is not persuasive because Mr. Juzkow unambiguously testified that charging in Uemura stopped when the applied voltage reached 4.3 V, and Uemura discloses that the battery was charged “at” a voltage ranging from 4.3 V to 2.0 V, not “to” such a voltage. Ex. 1009 ¶ 81; Ex. 2008, 113:2–13; Ex. 2006 ¶ 119 n.64; Sur-reply 9. In view of the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Uemura anticipates independent claims 1 and 5 of the ’641 patent.” slip op. at 21

  Patent outcomesUS 7,749,641 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,749,641
• 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
• Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 16, 2025 · IPR2023-01026 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–36 are unpatentable: claims 1–4, 7, 10–17, 19–23, 25–27, and 30–36 are anticipated by Alden; claims 5, 6, 8, and 9, and 28–29, are obvious over the stated combinations.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenUnpatentable

    “III. CONCLUSION For the reasons given, Petitioner has met its burden of showing that claims 1–36 of U.S. Patent 10,894,503 B2 are unpatentable.12 The results are summarized below:” slip op. at 47

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “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” (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 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedOther

    “While Alden’s Figure 5 shows a sectional view of a segmented-headlight embodiment, thus depicting a single line of LEDs, that does not restrict the embodiment to a one-dimensional array. Indeed, Alden’s disclosures discussed above contradict such a view, as do the disclosures regarding Figure 5 and other segmented-headlight embodiments. We credit Petitioner’s expert’s testimony in this regard. Ex. 2041, 59:10–12 (“[I]t’s very clear we’re talking about a two-dimensional structure that is map of this set of slices in figure 5.”); accord id. at 56:25–60:18. The Figure 5 embodiment includes a switch array to control the individual lighting elements, with “[e]ach lighting element being independently controlled by a corresponding switch in an array of switches 115.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 29. The Figure 6 embodiment includes a face-on view of the headlight plainly showing a two-dimensional array, in addition to a sectional view similar to that of Figure 5. Id. at Fig. 6. And Alden describes that the Figure 6 embodiment uses a “switch array similar to 115 and the process previously described herein.” Id. ¶ 30. Considering Alden’s description of its sensing-and-control circuit in connection with Figure 3, which illustrates a two-dimensional array, and its description of Figure 5’s segmented headlight as working with that approach, we find that Alden’s LED-based segmented headlight is capable of selective illumination in two dimensions. See id. ¶¶ 27, 29, Figs. 3, 5.” slip op. at 17

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

    “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 11

  Patent outcomesUS 10,894,503 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,894,503
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jan 8, 2025 · IPR2023-00992 · APJ Steven M Amundson · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, and 17 are unpatentable; claims 3–6, 9, and 14 are not shown unpatentable, and claims 15 and 16 were disclaimed.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Factors pertinent to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art include (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) the type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior-art solutions to those problems; (4) the rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) the sophistication of the technology; and (6) the educational level of workers active in the field. Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Not all factors may exist in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id. These factors are not exhaustive, but merely a guide to determining the level of ordinary skill in the art. Daiichi Sankyo Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Petitioner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, or a similar field and two years of experience related to electronic consumer product design.” 3 The parties do not provide evidence or argument regarding objective indicia of nonobviousness. See, e.g., Pet. 9–93; Resp. 18–66. Pet. 6. Petitioner also asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “could have also obtained similar knowledge and experience through other means.” Id. Dr. Wolfe’s testimony supports Petitioner’s assertions. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 30. Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had (1) a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or a comparable field of study, and (2) at least two years of professional experience with electro-mechanical control systems, or other similarly relevant industry experience.” Resp. 3. Patent Owner also asserts that “[a]dditional relevant industry experience may compensate for lack of formal education or vice versa.” Id. Dr. Goossen’s testimony supports Patent Owner’s assertions. See Ex. 2008 ¶ 16.” slip op. at 15

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

    “10. SUMMARY “[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); see Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Above, we discussed issues concerning the “component” limitations in claims 1, 3, and 4 and an ambiguity in claim 4. See supra §§ III.C.4(c), III.C.5(c), III.C.6(c), III.C.7(c), III.C.8(c), III.C.9. We determine that no other claim language requires a discussion of scope or an explicit construction to decide whether Petitioner satisfies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard for proving unpatentability. D. Alleged Obviousness over Fukumoto: Claims 1–3, 7–9, and 17 Petitioner contends that claims 1–3, 7–9, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Fukumoto. See Pet. 9–35; Reply 16–22. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contentions. See Resp. 18–27; Sur-reply 7–14. Below, we provide an overview of Fukumoto. Then, we consider the obviousness issues. For the reasons explained below, we agree with Petitioner that claims 1, 2, 7, and 17 are unpatentable under § 103(a) because the claims would have been obvious over Fukumoto but disagree that claims 3, 8, and 9 are unpatentable based on Fukumoto.” slip op. at 44

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner

    “2. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION CLAIMING The patent statute provides that “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 (2006). The absence of the word “means” in a claim limitation creates a rebuttable presumption that § 112’s means-plus-function provision does not apply. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part). When a claim limitation lacks the word “means,” a party may rebut the presumption that § 112’s means-plus-function provision does not apply by demonstrating that “the claim term fails to ‘recite[] sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348 (alteration by the court) (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves two steps: first, identify the claimed function or functions; and second, determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the patent’s specification corresponds to the claimed function or functions. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351; see Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2001). For the second step, a person of ordinary skill in the art must “recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.” All-Voice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The “duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience” of using means-plus-function claiming. B. Braun Med., Inc., v. Abbott Lab’ys, 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). When a limitation recites two or more functions, the specification” slip op. at 18

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

    “Conclusion About Obviousness/Nonobviousness For the reasons discussed above, Fukumoto teaches claim 1’s subject” slip op. at 64

  Patent outcomesUS 9,369,081 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,369,081
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Dec 10, 2024 · IPR2024-00912 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Micron did not show a reasonable likelihood that claim 7 was obvious over Seo and Choi or Nam and Choi.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “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 (2018); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.4 (2023). For the reasons discussed below, we deny the Petition and do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “(“POSITA”) would have had “a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline” with “4–5 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or developing) NAND flash memory devices (including issues relating to the operation, e.g., reading of said devices), or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience).” Pet. 28–29 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 35–39). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner neither responds to Petitioner’s proposed definition, nor 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 effective March 16, 2013. Because the ’342 patent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, codes (22), (63)), we refer to the AIA version of Sections 102 and 103. 2 Seo, US 2021/0027848 A1, published Jan. 28, 2021 (Ex. 1005). 3 Bongsik Choi et al., Comprehensive evaluation of early retention (fast charge loss within a few seconds) characteristics in tube-type 3-D NAND Flash Memory, SYMPOSIUM ON VLSI TECHNOLOGY DIGEST OF TECHNICAL PAPERS, 78–79 (2016) (Ex. 1007). 4 Nam, US 2015/0003169 A1, published Jan. 1, 2015 (Ex. 1006). undisputed proposed definition appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and the disclosure of the ’342 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that specific findings regarding ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985))).” slip op. at 6

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

    “customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on the record before us, we determine that no claim term requires express construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 7

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerationsNot reached

    “techniques for removing fast charges during a read-verification operation.” Prelim. Resp. 28. In order to rely on inherency to establish the existence of a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis, “the limitation at issue necessarily must be present, or the natural result of the combination of elements explicitly disclosed by the prior art.” PAR Pharma, Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195–96 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Petitioner, therefore, must show that fast charges of the target memory cell necessarily are removed during the first time period of Seo’s read-verification operation. On this record, neither Petitioner nor Dr. Liu sufficiently demonstrates that Seo’s read-verification operation would necessarily remove fast charges of the target memory cell during the first time period.” slip op. at 12

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,600,342
• Microsoft Corporation / Affirmed Networks, Inc. v. Lemko CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Sep 10, 2024 · IPR2023-00531 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3–9, and 20 are unpatentable as anticipated by Flore under § 102.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate unpatentability, and that burden never shifts to Patent Owner. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 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). The prior art need not, however, use the same words as the claims. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The anticipation inquiry takes into account the literal teachings of the prior art reference and inferences the ordinarily skilled person would draw from it. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Res. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1073, 1074–75 (Fed. Cir. 2017).” slip op. at 6

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner defines the person of ordinary skill in the art as follows: “As of 2008, a person of ordinary skill in the art [POSA or POSITA] . . . of the ’988 patent’s field would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience related to telecommunications networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56). Petitioner also asserts that “[a]dditional graduate education . . . could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. Patent Owner “applies this definition of a POSITA for its analysis.” PO Resp. 18. Based on the complete record now before us, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal as reasonable and consistent with the prior art and the ’988 patent. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner also does not persuasively explain why we should disregard the ’988 patent’s exception to peer-to-peer connections, that is, “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers in an IP network.” Id. at 9:12–13. Patent Owner’s assertions that when “DMA servers are able to connect as peers with an existing DMA network, they do so,” and that the “new DMA server is just the initial node in a new peer-to-peer network,” do not find support in the specification. See PO Resp. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:9–24, Fig. 6). Instead, Patent Owner cites a portion of the specification that explains “in not all cases will the DMA servers 406 be able to participate as peers,” such as in rural areas, in which case “DMA gateways . . . enable DMA servers to communicate with one another when one or more of the DMA serves cannot participate directly in the IP network.” Ex. 1001, 9:12–21. Nothing in this passage suggests that a DMA server not acting as a peer would merely be a temporary condition and that once able to connect as a peer, it would do so. Such reasoning is gloss added by Patent Owner and Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Cooklev, whose testimony on this point mirrors the Response. Ex. 2021 ¶ 69. We do not find Dr. Cooklev’s testimony credible on this point because the testimony does not align with the ’988 patent specification.” slip op. at 11

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

    “Our reviewing court “has repeatedly cautioned against limiting the claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific examples in the specification.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1346–47 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Absent disclaimer or lexicography, the plain meaning of the claim controls.” Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp., 681 F.3d 1358, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There is no disclaimer or lexicography in the specification that requires us to limit the claims as Patent Owner wishes. We agree with Petitioner that the passages upon which Patent Owner relies use non-limiting, exemplary language. See Reply 6. For example, Patent Owner relies heavily on Figure 4 and its accompanying description, but Figure 4 “illustrates a non-limiting, exemplary embodiment.” PO Resp. 19–25; Ex. 1001, 6:31. Thus, Figure 4’s references to a “peer-to-peer connection,” “switch and route call[]” functionality, that “controlling logic can be distributed,” and “self-healing and redundant” wireless coverage, for example, do not limit the claim. See Ex. 1001, 6:48, 52, 64, 66 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,855,988 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation
  Patents in suitUS 7,855,988
• US Conec Ltd. v. Senko Advanced Components, Inc.Instituted
  PTAB · Jul 9, 2024 · IPR2024-00119 · APJ Brian D Range · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted review of claims 1–17 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim despite finding Wong was not shown to be prior art.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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.” The following findings of fact and conclusions of law are not final, but are made for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner meets the threshold for initiating review. Any final decision shall be based on the full trial record, including any response timely filed by Patent Owner. Any arguments not raised by Patent Owner in a timely-filed response may be deemed waived. For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. We hereby institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–17 of the ’760 patent based upon Petitioner’s asserted grounds of unpatentability.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 36–42). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim Resp. 8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposal as reasonable and consistent with the ’760 patent specification and the prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 9

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

    “Prelim. Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:15–17, 7:49–51, 8:6–8, 9:10–12). We agree with Patent Owner that “slidably” in claim 1 requires that some continuous surface-to-surface contact must occur. Patent Owner further argues, however, that the figures, such as Figure 12A of the ’760 Patent, provide minimal clearance between the remote/latch release. Prelim. Resp. 10–11. These figures merely depict embodiments of an optical fiber connector after final assembly. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 4:51–57 (stating that Figure 12A depicts “one embodiment” and that Figure 12B is a top view of the Figure 12A connector). We do not discern anything about the word “slidably” or claim 1 that requires minimal clearance after assembly. We also do not discern anything about claim 1 that requires that, for example, the inner portion of the groove slide against the lower portion of the latch release. Rather, the inner portion of the groove must be above to “receive” the lower portion of the latch release. How does it receive it? It does so “slidably.” The recitation is met so long as the inner portion of the groove is configured such that it can receive the lower portion of the latch release via any sliding. Neither the inner portion nor the lower portion, in particular, must have sliding surface-to-surface contact. In a similar way, neither the outer portion of the groove nor the narrower portion of the latch release must have sliding surface-to-surface contact. Thus, rather than importing a minimal clearance requirement into claim 1’s “slidably” recitations and rather than requiring that specific components must slide (when the claim does not state as much), we understand, for example, “the inner portion of the groove being configured to slidably receive the lower portion of the latch release” to mean that the inner portion of the groove has structure capable of receiving the lower portion of the latch release via a sliding motion. Such sliding could include any degree of surface-to-surface contact between parts; for example, the bottom surface of the latch release could slide along the upper surface of the groove. Similarly, “the outer portion of the groove being configured to slidably receive the narrower portion of the latch release” means that the outer portion of the groove has structure capable of receiving the narrower portion of the latch release via a sliding motion.” slip op. at 12

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

    “connectors. Pet. 14–16. Petitioner argues that Raven teaches a connector that includes two ferrules and that Kuffel teaches an MPO connector that contains MT ferrules. Id. at 15–17 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1003, Fig. 1; Ex. 1004, 5:16–27; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 150–151). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Kuffel’s MPO connectors (which contain MT ferrules) would be used to increase density within data transmission networks. Id. at 16 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1004, 4:8–14; Ex. 1007 ¶ 147; Ex. 1015; Ex. 1025; Ex. 1027). Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have modified Raven’s two ferrule connector to use an MT ferrule (as Kuffel teaches) and argues that such a modification would improve Raven’s device in the same way as described in Kuffel. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 152–154). Petitioner argues that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making this modification. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶ 155). Petitioner argues that the modification (1) is supported by the disclosures of Kuffel and Raven, (2) represents a simple substitution, and (3) would enable Raven to incorporate a multi-fiber connector. Id. at 20–23 (citing, e.g., Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 159–169). Based on the evidence presented, Petitioner adequately establishes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Raven and Kuffel with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,415,760

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.