- Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 24, 2025 · IPR2024-00714 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable: Goldenberg anticipates or renders claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–19 obvious, and Goldenberg with Cruz-Hernandez renders claims 7, 14, and 20 obvious.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar, supported by testimonial evidence, and consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions in the ’907 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:14–62. Because we discern no dispositive difference between the parties’ proposals, and neither party has argued that the choice between the two would affect the outcome,6 we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill for this decision. We note, however, that our decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“to,” as recited in each of claims 1, 8, and 15, to “require[] a cause-and-effect relationship between a secondary event (e.g., a haptic effect) that occurs in reaction to a first event (e.g., entry of the user input element to one or more positions within the boundary range of positions).” PO Resp. 26–27 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶ 44). Patent Owner argues that “in response to” refers to more than just a coincidence and involves at least some degree of causality. Id. at 27 (citing American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., 651 F.3d 1318, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Ex. 2007, 12–14 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2008, 7 (dictionary definition); Ex. 2006, 30:13–31:2, 32:8–11, 32:17– 21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)); PO Sur-reply 8–9 (citing Ex. 2009, 34:8–19, 36:5–21 (testimony by Mr. Ward)).” slip op. at 17
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 18
Patent outcomesUS 10,627,907 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,627,907 - Crowdstrike, Inc. v. Gosecure, Inc.InstitutedPTAB · May 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00068 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–21 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Capalik and King.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We have authority to determine whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). To institute an inter partes review, we must determine that the information presented in the Petition and the Preliminary Response shows “a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons set forth below, we determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim. We institute an inter partes review of claims 1–21 based on the grounds set forth in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argued that we should not institute both petitions. Paper 8, 1–5. Patent Owner argued that the challenged claims are not long and Petitioner’s concerns about the construction of “association” in limitation 1(b) are “contrived.” Id. at 1. Patent Owner contends that Petitioner could have addressed all of the challenged claims in one petition. Id. Noting that both the ’70 petition and the instant Petition challenge all claims of the ’872 patent, Patent Owner argued that the number of claims challenged does not necessitate multiple petitions. Id. at 2–3. Patent Owner also argued that Petitioner could have waited until closer to the statutory due the claim language “association” in the related district court proceeding. Id. at 4–5. Considering the facts holistically, we determine the totality of the circumstances here supports Petitioner’s position that two petitions are warranted. Petitioner has challenged a large number of claims directed to complex subject matter. And the task of challenging those claims is complicated by the potential for Patent Owner to argue for a narrow construction of “association” in limitation 1(b). Patent Owner’s suggestion that Petitioner would not have needed to file multiple petitions if it had waited longer to file a petition is not persuasive. Paper 8, 4–5. Patent Owner does not explain why a petitioner should be encouraged to delay the filing of its petition. See id. And the parties appear to agree that Patent Owner has not weighed in on whether “association” should be interpreted narrowly or broadly. Prelim. Reply. 8; Prelim. Sur-Reply 8. The present circumstances, considered as a whole, warrant two petitions challenging the claims of the ’872 patent.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“III. ANALYSIS A. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL Petitioner explains the applicable level of skill in the art as follows: As of June 24, 2010, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be a person having a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, as well as two years of industry experience. A POSITA would also have had a working knowledge of software security analysis and dynamic malware analysis. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. explanation of the level of skill in the art. See Prelim. Resp. 13. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’872 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We first look to the claim language itself. It recites “transmitting to one or more computer systems,” not transmitting to “devices.” Ex. 1001, 19:53. Although the claim language “one or more computer systems” may encompass “protected network devices,” we do not see a reason that its plain meaning would be limited to network devices, much less protected network devices. Nor do we see a reason that the plain meaning of “one or more computer systems” is limited to protected network devices to the exclusion of a network that includes protected network devices and one or more other components. In support of its suggestion that the claim language “one or more computer systems” excludes a combination of protected network devices and one or more other components, Patent Owner cites the claim language “for preventing future attacks, to the one or more computer systems.” Prelim. Resp. 20–24; Prelim. Sur-Reply 1–2. But Patent Owner does not provide reasoning or evidence persuading us to read the claim language more narrowly than its plain meaning, which encompasses preventing future attacks to a computer system that includes both protected network devices and one or more other components.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 9,954,872 - PTAB · Apr 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01489 · APJ Barbara A Parvis · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–30 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Cohen anticipates the challenged claims.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“To show anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, each and every claim element, arranged as in the claim, must be found in a single prior art reference. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Identity of terminology is not required for a claim element to be met directly by the prior art. In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citations omitted) (“[T]his is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.”). For anticipation, we take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 13
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“Wrinkl, Inc. v. Slack Technologies, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00620 (D. Del. May 23, 2024). Pet. 1; Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner also states that a “second IPR was filed against the same patent in proceeding IPR2024-01490.” Paper 4, 1. Patent Owner does not argue that we should exercise discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Petitioner uses more than one petition to challenge the ’731 patent. challenges the alleged priority date of the ’731 patent (IPR2024-01489) (‘First Petition’) and the second petition assumes that the Patent Owner’s claimed priority date is valid, and addresses prior art references predating that priority date (IPR2024-01490) (‘Second Petition’).” Ex. 1019, 1. In accordance with the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide1 (“CTPG”), issued in November 2019, “there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary” including “when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references.” CTPG 59. Such is the case here. Patent Owner does not file any Preliminary Response or other paper disputing Petitioner’s use of two petitions to challenge the claims of the ’731 patent. Based on the record before us, we consider the merits of both petitions because Petitioner’s stated reasons for filing two petitions are consistent with the CTPG. See generally Ex. 1019 (citing CTPG, 59 (“the Board recognizes that there may be circumstances in which more than one petition may be necessary, including, for example, . . . when there is a dispute about priority date requiring arguments under multiple prior art references)). C. The ’731 Patent” slip op. at 2
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateOther
“reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on a ground of unpatentability. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)) (“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”). Petitioner first must raise the issue of entitlement to a claimed priority date by “identifying, specifically, the features, claims, and ancestral application or applications allegedly lacking § 112 support for the claims based on the identified features.” Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 8 at 9–10 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014); Mission Integrated Techs., LLC v. Joshua Clemente, IPR2023-01285, Paper 16 at 18 (PTAB Feb. 23, 2024). Then, Patent Owner must make a sufficient showing of entitlement to earlier filing date(s), in a manner that is commensurate in scope with the specific points and contentions raised by the petitioner. See id.” slip op. at 11
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“two years of experience in the graphical user interface field” or, alternatively “a master’s degree in computer science (or similar discipline) and at least two years of similar experience.” Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 40). We find that “at least” in Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art is vague and open-ended. Otherwise, we preliminarily adopt Petitioner’s formulation of the level of skill in the art, which appears consistent with the specification and prior art presented. C. Claim Construction” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 112 disclosureDiscretionary denialcites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,973,731 - PTAB · Dec 18, 2024 · IPR2024-00981 · APJ Georgianna W Braden · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the Kleve-based obviousness challenges.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“to determine whether to institute review. Based on the current record and for the reasons explained below, Petitioner has shown that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Therefore, pursuant to § 314, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 in the ’188 patent on all challenges included in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that Examiner’s notation indicates that Zaid was considered. We do not agree, however, with Patent Owner’s position regarding Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve. The challenges over Kleve alone or in combination with Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude counsel us not to discretionarily deny institution. Patent Owner does not dispute that Kleve, Sekiyama, Mottla, and/or Patenaude were not before the Office. See Prelim. Resp. 15–24; Prelim. Sur-reply 5. Although Patent Owner characterizes the Petition’s challenges based on Kleve as an “attempt to end-run Section 325(d) by including additional grounds that lack merit” (Prelim. Resp. 23–24), we disagree. Rather, explained in detail below, we are persuaded by Petitioner’s challenges based on Kleve and it is the reason for institution. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceeding, Petitioner’s challenges based on Zaid are not relevant. As such, we determine any analysis under Advanced Bionics is inapplicable, and we do not exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny institution. b. Advanced Bionics Prong Two: whether “the Office erred in a manner material to the patentability of the challenged claims” Because the Board is persuaded to instituted based on challenges not involving Zaid, , we will not consider the second part of the Advanced Bionics framework.” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the language in Petitioner’s stipulation does not eliminate completely any overlap with district court invalidity arguments. Petitioner’s stipulation allows Petitioner to use any prior art reference that is not relied on in the Petition. This may not fully address “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions.” See Fintiv, Paper 11 at 12. Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation does decrease the overlap in issues and mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Additionally, we agree with Petitioner that the fact that the Petition challenges claims that are not asserted in the litigation weighs marginally in its favor. Based on the foregoing discussion, we determine that factor four weighs against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenInstituted
“teaches, or at least suggests, that the user’s “request includes a condition of use of the vehicle as set by the user via the user account” because we are persuaded that the distribution of Kleve’s virtual e-key includes a rental period restriction. Specifically, we are persuaded by the Petition’s reliance on Kleve’s express disclosure that “terms and conditions for the rental period” are agreed to before the virtual key is generated. See Pet. 15 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 38). We preliminarily agree with Petitioner that Kleve describes an e-key that is only operable during a rental period because Kleve discloses “[t]he virtual key may also be sent to the vehicle configuring the VCS to enable the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” Ex. 1004 ¶ 39; see Pet. 16. We note Patent Owner’s citations to Kleve’s Figures 2 and 5 that indicate control restrictions are added after the distribution of a virtual key. At this stage of the proceeding, however, based on the disclosure of Kleve we are persuaded the rental period would be included as a restriction when the virtual key is created at step 206 of Figure 2 prior to the distribution of the virtual key at 210. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 38–39. At this stage, we credit the testimony of Dr. Almeroth, who opines that Kleve discloses that certain restrictions are sent with the request to generate a virtual key. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 118–123. Specifically, Dr. Almeroth testifies that Kleve discloses that the virtual key “enable[s] the keyless drive system for the appropriate Temporary User during a given rental period.” restrictions were sent with the request so that the virtual key could be associated with said restrictions.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“Once the rental period has expired the virtual key may be reset and cleared from the VCS.”)). Dr. Almeroth further testifies that the virtual key in Kleve is always generated after the rental agreement. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 39, 68 (“[O]nce the Temporary User selects the vehicle, pays the appropriate amount and signs a consent agreement, then the system may generate a virtual key to distribute to the Temporary User and VCS.”)). Thus, after review of the arguments and evidence, we find that Petitioner has provided adequate explanation and supporting evidence that Kleve teaches or suggests the challenged claim limitation.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,365,188 - AT&T Services Inc. / T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v. Innovative Sonic Ltd.Institution deniedPTAB · Dec 12, 2024 · IPR2024-00991 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any asserted anticipation or obviousness ground for claims 1–11.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner responds that “a person with the 3-year experience proposed by Petitioner would not have the intimate knowledge of the existing standardized cellular system” required to understand “how a proposed change would impact the rest of the system.” Prelim. Resp. 7. But Patent Owner also states that engineers participating in the development of the relevant cellular specifications “would not be expected to be familiar with all relevant aspects of the specifications” given their length and complexity. Id. at 7–8. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above, because we are satisfied that it generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’883 patent and the asserted prior art. To the extent Patent Owner disagrees (see Prelim. Resp. 6–8), it fails to sufficiently explain its contrary position by, for example, providing its own proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner states that “the Board does not need to expressly construe any terms” in this proceeding because “the prior art in this Petition discloses all limitations under any plausible construction.” Pet. 10–11. Patent Owner similarly states that “all terms are entitled to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Prelim. Resp. 21. We agree with the parties that it is not necessary to construe any claim terms or phrases in this Decision. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe only those terms that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (cleaned up).” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(step 406) discloses the claimed “second request” (Pet. 44–45),9 but Petitioner fails to show that this message discloses a request. See Prelim. Resp. 46–48. Han explains that the dual connection setup response in step 406 is a “dual connection setup request acknowledge (ACK)” message sent in response to “dual connection setup request” received in step 404. Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 40–42; accord Pet. 42–44. An acknowledgement is not a request, and Petitioner fails to sufficiently support its contention to the contrary (see Pet. 44–45). According to Petitioner, the acknowledgement message is “a request to change a data path” because the data path is “change[d] . . . based on this message” (id. at 45 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 42–47; Ex. 1003 ¶ 202)); however, this is faulty reasoning. At most, Petitioner’s argument shows that the acknowledgement is a message “to change a data 9 We note that this is the same message relied upon by Petitioner to teach the claimed “accept message” recited earlier in claim 1. Compare Pet. 44– 45, with id. at 43–44. We need not (and do not) decide whether Petitioner has sufficiently shown that this message discloses two separate claim elements. path,” not that it is a request to do so. In other words, even if Han’s acknowledgement message (in step 406) is a condition precedent to changing the data path, this does not make the message a “request.” Although Dr. Mahon agrees with Petitioner, his analysis mirrors Petitioner’s arguments and suffers from the same deficiencies. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 202– 203; see also Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Tech. Corp., 121 F.3d 1461, 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An expert’s conclusory testimony, unsupported by the documentary evidence, cannot supplant the requirement of anticipatory disclosure in the prior art reference itself.”).” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,736,883 - PTAB · Oct 22, 2024 · IPR2024-00786 · APJ Frances L Ippolito · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 10–20 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the Petition and any response thereto shows “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Considering the arguments presented, we conclude there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 10–20 of the ’268 patent as unpatentable under the challenges presented in the Petition. Pursuant to § 314, we hereby institute an inter partes review as to these claims of the ’268 patent.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Nonetheless, Petitioner’s stipulation mitigates to a great degree the concerns regarding duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Thus, we determine that the fourth Fintiv factor weighs against discretionary denial of institution.” slip op. at 48
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination only when it is analogous to the claimed invention. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Federal Circuit has laid out two separate tests to determine whether a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention, i.e., whether one of ordinary skill in the art would even look to the teachings of that reference. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). They are: “(1) whether the art is from the same field of [the inventor’s] endeavor” and “(2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” Id.; see also In re Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348.” slip op. at 33
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“recognizing the heterogeneity of vehicles, one would have been motivated to determine applicable settings (e.g., command codes) that are compatible with settings that are settable in the selected vehicle but would avoid determining applicable settings that are incompatible with settings that are settable in the selected vehicle, ensuring that Xiao’s server 118 does not attempt to command vehicles to do things they cannot do, potentially resulting in unexpected and/or undesired vehicle configurations or errors. Pet. 49; Ex. 1009 ¶ 191. Petitioner adds that “[a]voiding such undesirable effects would be a predictable result of implementing Hayashi’s known method of determining compatibility.” Id. For the purposes of institution, Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Almeroth’s testimony are better supported by the Xiao and Hayashi. Nevertheless, the parties are encouraged to further develop the record on this issue after institution. After review of the arguments and evidence currently of record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that Xiao in combination with Hayashi renders independent claim 10 obvious.” slip op. at 40
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,171,268 - Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Identitii LimitedInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 26, 2024 · IPR2024-00593 · APJ Meredith C Petravick · IPR · Institution
Institution was denied because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–20 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We determine that the information presented fails to show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing that claims 1–2 and 4–20 are unpatentable over Kennedy and Kurani-816. 2. Ground 2 — Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago Claim 3 depends from claim 1. We determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 would have been obvious over Kennedy, Kurani-816, and Yago. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. We are not persuaded by Petitioner that it would have been obvious to a POSITA, based on the disclosures of Kennedy and Kurani-816, to store a digital title in memory 228 of processing server 102 for the purpose of record keeping. See Ex. 2013 ¶ 91. Kennedy discloses that processing server 102 includes a memory 228 for storing data used to perform its function, such as encryption keys, algorithms, and application programs. Ex. 1033 ¶ 46. Kennedy does not disclose memory 228 being a document store for record keeping of transaction messages or other transaction data. See id. In Kennedy, a private blockchain 206 stores data record 208 containing the transaction data. See e.g., id. ¶¶ 48–51; Fig. 2. Kurani-816 discloses digital titles that are specific to an asset and not to a particular financial transaction. Ex. 1034, 3:13–15. The digital titles are stored in a database at a digital title company and provided to the seller or buyer during a transaction. See e.g., id. at 6:34–9:7. Kurani-816 does not disclose transmitting the digital title to a financial transaction processing server, like processing server 102. Id. Thus, neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 teaches transmitting documents pertaining to a financial transaction and a token corresponding to a financial transaction to identify the document to a first document store, as required by claim elements 1 and 6. For the reasons above, we are not persuaded by Petitioner that claim 1 would have been obvious to a POSITA over Kennedy and Kurani-816.” slip op. at 19
- Parallel petitionsNot reached
“Because we have denied institution in IPR2024-00590 and deny institution in this proceeding based on the patentability merits, we do not need to reach the issue of whether both Petitions should be instituted.” slip op. at 3
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“patent applications, including one filed on August 14, 2015. Ex. 1001, code (30). Petitioner asserts that the ’413 patent is not entitled to priority to August 14, 2015 because the provisional applications do not provide written description support for certain claim terms. Pet. 6–15. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s assertion. Prelim. Resp. 20, n.7. As both Kennedy and Kurani-816 were filed after August 14, 2015 (see Ex. 1033, code (22); Ex. 1034, code (22)), if the ’413 patent is entitled to priority to August 14, 2015, then neither Kennedy nor Kurani-816 is available as prior art. We do not need to reach this issue because, regardless of whether Kennedy and Kurani-816 are available as prior art, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Kennedy and Kurani-816 as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,984,413 - I4f Licensing NV v. Vilox ABInstitution deniedPTAB · Aug 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00602 · APJ Neil T Powell · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were anticipated by Miller or obvious over Miller alone or Miller and Roy.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons explained below, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Considering all of the arguments and evidence, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner insufficiently supports its position that Miller discloses a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface. Petitioner does not cite any text in Miller that discloses a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface. E.g., Pet. 7–8, 14–23. Instead, Petitioner relies on Miller’s Figure 3 as allegedly showing a curved horizontal locking surface. E.g., id. at 15–18, 21–23. We do not find that Miller’s Figure 3 shows a locking recess with a curved horizontal locking surface in the location identified by Petitioner, i.e., the location of the curved red arrow that Petitioner added to Miller’s Figure 3. E.g., Pet. 15, 22. Even assuming that this portion of Miller’s drawing shows a very subtle rise (which we do not find), it does not show clearly a curve, as opposed to, for example, a slightly inclined flat surface. Moreover, we agree with Patent Owner that, at the point of Petitioner’s curved red arrow, Figure 3’s overlapping representation of the tongue’s lower surface and the groove’s upper surface prevents distinguishing one from the other. Prelim. Resp. 45 (“In Figure 3, the lines merge so that no conclusion can reasonably be made by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as to whether a locking recess is present in the groove or not.”). Accordingly, Figure 3 does not allow discerning a curve in the groove’s upper surface at the point identified by Petitioner.” slip op. at 17
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Additionally, Petitioner does not provide a persuasive reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had to configure Miller’s panel with a curved horizontal locking surface, in addition to an inclined horizontal locking surface, as required by independent claim 1. Pet. 34–39; Prelim. Resp. 54. In support of its argument that it was well-known to use curved locking surfaces, Petitioner provides a vague string cite of evidence that dubiously includes Miller (which has not been shown to disclose a curved horizontal locking surface). Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 25–26, 56; Ex. 1006, Figs. 2–4, 9, and 10 and associated description; Ex. 1004; Ex. 1006; Ex. 1005; Ex. 1009; Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011; Ex. 1012; Ex. 1013; Ex. 1014). Moreover, to the extent Petitioner is correct that it was well-known and easy to configure a panel with a curved locking surface, that may show that a person of ordinary skill in the art could have added a curved horizontal locking surface to Miller’s panel. But that does not show sufficiently that such a modification would have been obvious, as it does not demonstrate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Miller’s cladding panel to add a curved horizontal locking surface. See Belden v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (stating that “obviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention”) (citing InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGo Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d 1327, 1351–1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Additionally, to the extent that Petitioner is correct that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized a strength benefit of having two locking recesses, that does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have added a curved locking surface, as opposed to, for example, another substantially planar locking surface like the one at Miller’s contact point 42. Pet. 36–39; Ex. 1004, 5:19–34. And Petitioner does not identify, much less substantiate, any other reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had for combining a curved locking surface with an inclined horizontal locking surface in Miller’s cladding panel. Pet. 36–39. Because Petitioner has not persuasively addressed claim 1’s requirement that its dual locking recesses include one with a curved horizontal locking surface, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that independent claim 1 would have been obvious over Miller. E.g., Pet. 7–8, 34–39. Additionally, this deficiency is not remedied in Petitioner’s challenges to dependent claims 2–15 based on Miller. E.g., Pet. 34, 40–50. Accordingly, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its position that dependent claims 2–15 would have been obvious over Miller.” slip op. at 23
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,421,425 - PTAB · Apr 25, 2024 · IPR2024-00146 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–5, 7–11, 13–20, and 22–27 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’555 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’555 patent. slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–70. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 70; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68, 70; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 20–22) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › NexusObjective indicia no nexusDecided for petitioner
“Based on the present record, we find that the secondary considerations findings from the ITC Investigation do not undermine the sufficiency of Petitioner’s obviousness showing at this stage.5 We note that Patent Owner “bears the burden of production with respect to evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At this stage, Patent Owner merely references the findings of the ITC rather than adducing evidence of objective indica of nonobviousness in the first instance and attempting to establish a nexus to the invention of the ’555 patent. Further, Petitioner has adduced at least some evidence that the allegedly unique features of the Move Media Player were known in Ogdon, which tends to undermine the ITC’s nexus analysis. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 14:46–49, 22:48–63. We also disagree with Patent 5 Patent Owner also argues that Dr. Houh’s testimony is unreliable because he failed to consider evidence of secondary considerations from the ITC Investigation. Prelim. Resp. 42–43. We decline to discount Dr. Houh’s testimony on this basis. Regardless of whether Dr. Houh addressed secondary considerations, we find his testimony relevant at this stage to our consideration of (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; and (3) the level of skill in the art. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18. Owner (Prelim. Resp. 41–42) that Ogdon does not disclose streaming video for the same reasons mentioned above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. For these reasons, we find that the evidence of secondary considerations in the present record does not undermine Petitioner’s showing for purposes of institution. We also decline to exercise our discretion to deny institution based on Petitioner’s alleged failure to address secondary considerations. Patent Owner will have the opportunity at trial to produce evidence related to secondary considerations of nonobviousness.” slip op. at 30
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“Claim 18 recites, inter alia, “at least one storage device configured to store live event video, the live event video encoded at a plurality of different bit rates creating a plurality of streams including at least a low quality stream and a high quality stream.” Ex. 1001, 20:45–49. Claim 18 additionally recites that “the low quality stream and the high quality stream each encod[e] the same portion of the live event video.” Id. at 20:50–53. Petitioner cites Ogdon’s discussion of storing different versions of a presentation. See Pet. 17–19. Patent Owner argues that Ogdon fails to teach multiple copies of the same video encoded at different bitrates, as required by the claim. Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 60). Having reviewed the parties’ arguments and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Ogdon alone discloses storing the same portion of live event video as a low quality stream and a high quality stream. Although we preliminarily agree that Ogdon teaches the use of video as a version of a presentation, we do not agree that Ogdon alone discloses storing multiple copies of the same video. Specifically, Ogdon describes storing different versions of a presentation, rather than multiple copies of the same video.9 See Ex. 1004, code (57), 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44–47, 24:55, claim 9. For these reasons, Petitioner does not show that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in establishing that Ogdon discloses claim 18. Petitioner’s analysis for claim 19, which depends from claim 18, is likewise deficient.” slip op. at 39
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,469,555 - PTAB · Apr 16, 2024 · IPR2024-00044 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 3–12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27–29 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“i. Conclusion Regarding Claim 1 Petitioner has shown sufficiently at this juncture that the combination of Ogdon and Allen teaches all limitations of claim 1. Petitioner also has put forth a sufficient rationale for combining Allen with Ogdon with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on the present record, we determine that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over the combination of Ogdon and Allen.” slip op. at 31
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied
“must consider “whether the same or substantially the same art previously was presented to the Office.” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8. Although we agree with Petitioner (Pet. 63–64) that Ogdon was not cited during prosecution, we still must consider whether Ogdon is substantially the same as Carmel. We determine that Ogdon is not substantially the same as Carmel because there are differences between them material to the way the Office previously considered the art. See Nokia of Am. Corp. v. Soto, IPR2023-00680, Paper 18 at 6 (Vidal Mar. 28, 2024) (“[P]rior art references are not ‘substantially the same’ when there are differences between them that are material to the Office’s prior consideration of the art.” (citing Wolfspeed, Inc. v. Trustees of Purdue University, IPR2022-00761, Paper 13 at 7–8 (Vidal Mar. 30, 2023)). Both parties agree that the Examiner distinguished Carmel during prosecution because it did not teach streamlets of the same duration. Pet. 10–11 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–71); Prelim. Resp. 37 (citing Ex. 1002, 1270–73). In contrast, Petitioner cites Ogdon in the Petition for teaching, inter alia, segments that have “approximately the same presentation duration.” See, e.g., Pet. 27 (quoting Ex. 1004, 2:49–55). For the same reasons discussed above (see supra § II.D.3.f), and based on the present record, we disagree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 38) that this disclosure does not teach streamlets of the same length. As such, we find that Petitioner applies Ogdon in a manner that is distinguishable from the way Carmel was understood by the Examiner during prosecution of the ’138 patent. Thus, we find that the same or substantially the same art or arguments were not previously presented, so we need not proceed past the first stage of the Advanced Bionics framework with respect to Ogdon. Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 8.” slip op. at 41
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Our inquiry begins and ends with the first test pertaining to the field of the endeavor. Patent Owner is correct that the ’138 patent is in the field of video streaming over the internet with shifting of streaming content based on network conditions. See Ex. 1001, 1:31–34. Similarly, Ogdon discloses shifting presentation content that is transmitted over the internet based on network conditions. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, 1:9–15. The only potential discrepancy appears to be whether Ogdon’s disclosed presentation content can include streaming video. And Ogdon discloses an example where a presentation version may include “real time or animated video.” Id. at 2:61– 66; see also infra § II.D.3.a (discussing Ogdon’s disclosure of video presentations). We find that Ogdon’s disclosure of transmitting real-time video as part of a presentation is the same as video streaming. Thus, we conclude that Ogdon is analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the ’138 patent. For purposes of this Decision, we determine that Ogdon qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because Ogdon’s issue date of December 12, 2000, is more than one year before the earliest effective filing date of the challenged claims, which is April 30, 2004. Ex. 1001, code (60); Ex. 1004, code (45). slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogdon and Allen to yield this limitation. Ogdon teaches different quality versions of a presentation that may include video (see, e.g., Ex. 1004, 2:8–10, 2:30–66, 13:47–49, 22:44– 47, 24:55), and Allen expressly teaches encoding the same content at bitrates of 56 kbps, 300 kbps, and 600 kbps (see, e.g., Ex. 1005, 12:1–5). Based on these teachings, Petitioner shows sufficiently, on this record, that it would have been obvious to encode streaming video into low, medium, and high quality streams. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–67. We also are sufficiently persuaded on this record that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Allen with Ogdon to enable streaming video presentations for a variety of different available bandwidths. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). In particular, Ogdon’s teaching of retrieving alternatively sized presentations based on transmission data rates supports Petitioner’s proposed combination with Allen’s teaching of encoding video at different bitrates. See Ex. 1004, code (57) (stating that a greater-sized presentation for a “higher transmission rate” has “corresponding enhanced quality of presentation” compared to a reduced-sized version for a “low transmission data rate”), 22:44–47 (stating that “as the expected amount of time for retrieving one or more presentation elements lengthens, . . . better presentation quality presentation elements may be retrieved (e.g., the presentation quality may be enhanced from limited or no animation to full animation)”). And Petitioner establishes sufficiently that an ordinarily skilled artisan reasonably would have expected success in making the combination, particularly given that Ogdon already contemplates alternative presentations for different transmission rates. See, e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65, 67; Ex. 1004, code (57). Patent Owner’s arguments are directed to Ogdon alone and do not account for Petitioner’s proposed modification based on Allen.3 Such arguments do not show nonobviousness where Petitioner’s obviousness ground is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, to the extent Patent Owner argues that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to modify Ogdon as proposed, it fails to sufficiently explain this contention. For example, we do not read Ogdon to indicate that its presentation versions must be wholly different types of presentation materials, i.e., presentations in different languages or presentations tailored for different audiences. We also do not agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 22–25) that Ogdon fails to teach or suggest video streaming for the same reasons discussed above. See supra §§ II.D.1, II.D.3.a. Thus, based on the present record, Patent Owner’s arguments regarding this limitation are unavailing.” slip op. at 21
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,470,138
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.