- Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Entropic Communications, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 4, 2025 · IPR2024-00430 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 6–10, 14–18, and 22–24 are unpatentable; claims 4–5, 11–13, and 19–21 are not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageTerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ’690 patent does not limit the term “probe” to channel assessment. Pet. Reply 2–4. Reviewing the intrinsic evidence, the “Technical Field” of the ’690 patent states that “some embodiments relate to channel assessment probes,” implying others do not. Ex. 1001, 1:13–14. The ’690 patent further states that “receiver determined probes may be used in a variety of applications” including to “discover hidden nodes” and “off-site network diagnosis.” Id. at 2:20–27. In addition, the ’690 patent states that probes may be used for “network maintenance procedures,” to “replicate a potential problem, reach or discover a distant or previously undetected node on the network, or assist with network admissions procedures.” Id. at 4:25–38. Turning to the claims of the ’690 patent, the evidence of record does not establish that the independent claims recite anything unique or specific to channel assessment (although their scope covers that purpose). Furthermore, dependent claim 7 of the ’690 patent recites that the “probe” is used to diagnose a network problem, and dependent claim 13 recites that the “probe” is used to identify a hidden node. Restricting the independent claims to probes used solely for channel assessment would be contradictory to these dependent claims. Littlefuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F.4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (construction of term in independent claims should not render dependent claims superfluous or lacking scope).” slip op. at 20
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that a “physical layer probe” is “a probe that relates to the physical layer.” The term does not appear per se in the specification of the ’960 patent, nor in the prosecution history, but only in claims 9, 17, and 19. However, the term “physical layer” is well-known and is the first layer in the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) network model. See, e.g., Ex. 1021, 35–40, 69; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 49–50. The physical layer is used to transmit digital bits over a network, and defines the timing, mechanical, and physical network characteristics required for transmitting the data bits. Hence, a “physical layer probe” is a probe that relates to the physical layer. We need not, and do not, construe the term further to resolve the parties’ dispute. See Realtime, Vivid Techs., supra. Having decided proper constructions for the disputed terms, we proceed in our analysis to consider the parties’ arguments concerning the challenge grounds. In the following sections, we apply the plain meaning of the claim terms, and as necessary, specify what the plain meanings are.” slip op. at 23
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends as follows: A POSITA8 would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a similar discipline, and three to four years of experience working in signal processing and/or communication systems/networks. Additional education may substitute for experience, and significant work experience may substitute for formal education. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 115–120). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill in the art. We adopt and apply Petitioner’s proposed skill level because it is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’690 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the adopted skill level consistent with the education and experience that a POSITA would have had. See In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 1986)) (citing factors to consider when determining level of ordinary skill in the art).” slip op. at 25
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableNot shown unpatentableMixed
“Hence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by preponderant evidence that the Ranging Request (“probe request”) message includes CID and SS MAC address and other parameters (“first plurality of parameters”) which at least specify the CID (“content payload of the probe”) and the SS MAC address (“second node”) of the Ranging Response.12 We thus proceed to consider Petitioner’s contentions for the remaining limitations of claim 1, which are undisputed, and determine that claim 1 is anticipated by IEEE-802.16.” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 8,284,690 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,284,690 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoSome claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,894,503 - Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Yechezkal Evan SperoAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 9, 2024 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 are unpatentable: Alden anticipates claims 24–27, 29–35, 37–43, and 45–47; the remaining claims are obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/70538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art and refer to people with it as skilled artisans.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“The problem with Patent Owner’s claim-construction position is that neither the dictionary definition nor the ’551 patent’s specification establish any degree of proof, verification, or confirmation that an object has been correctly identified. The specification discloses that “techniques known in the art” may be used “to classify, identify or locate the contents” visible to a camera sensor. Ex. 1001, 44:67–45:9. That does not establish any certainty obtained by the preexisting techniques. The specification states that the system can “illuminate distant overhead and roadside signs” and can use “[i]mage recognition via a camera” so that the illumination beam may “follow the retroreflective sign as the vehicle moves.” Id. at 51:59–67. That disclosure does not speak to any degree of confirmation or certainty. The specification’s other disclosures are no different. Id. at 52:19–27 (disclosing automated control over lighting and referencing “automatic dimming of high beam due to detection of oncoming vehicles”), 52:66–53:4 (“Using color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.”), 63:9–12 (“Using real time image processing methodologies with image and scene recognition technology known in the art, room or outdoor area elements, objects and people are identified.”), 64:46–49 (“Using machine vision technology known in the art such as neural networks training and other pattern recognition techniques the vision system has sensor, algorithmic and computation means for identifying devices or objects.”), 69:54–57 (“In a preferred embodiment of the invention the logical controller 454 receiving image input from the camera 453 and running pattern recognition software will identify what is the visual task a person is trying to perform.”), 75:48–62 (“Using programmed scene recognition algorithms, the luminaire’s computer vision system comprised of the camera sensor 496 and logical controller 494 identifies the food on the plate, looks-up in storage the recommended CCT and powers each of the different colored LED chips aimed thereon at the correct power level in order to provide the optimal color illumination.”), 76:33–39 (“[A] camera vision system has algorithmic means to identify and track the position of people and objects and the logical controller has motion control means for re-aiming the light sources towards targeted elements and changing the power level to the LED chips.”). None of those disclosures addresses a requirement for confirming or verifying an identification that the system makes; nor does any address a particular accuracy requirement in identifying an object. Based on the specification using “identify” without any requirement that identifying an object requires confirmation or verification of the object’s true identify, we do not adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction. Although the construction itself similarly does not expressly require the confirmation or verification that Patent Owner seeks to impose, we understand that to be Patent Owner’s intent, and accordingly do not adopt the proposed construction. The parties dispute no other aspect of “identify,” and we therefore need not expressly construe the term.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Because Alden describes its segmented headlights as implementing a process using two-dimensional signals for two-dimensional dimming functionality, we find that Figure 5 depicts a section of an embodiment that contains more than a single row of lighting elements. Stated otherwise, Alden’s disclosures are consistent with each other and are directed to a two-dimensional approach to sensing, control, and illumination. Further, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has not addressed the legal standard for lack of enablement. Pet. Reply 2. In particular, to overcome the presumption that prior-art disclosures are enabled, Patent Owner must show ordinarily skilled artisans would require undue experimentation to practice the disclosed invention. See Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F. 3d 1313, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Antor Media Corp., 689 F. 3d 1282, 1287– 88 (Fed. Cir. 2012). We do not agree with Patent Owner that Alden lacks a presumption of enablement (see PO Surreply 7–8), because we determine that Petitioner’s contentions rely on Alden’s disclosures regarding its invention as a whole. Other than arguing that Figure 5 discloses a single-row embodiment that is unusable with Alden’s other disclosures, Patent Owner has made no attempt to show Alden lacks enablement. Patent Owner has not addressed what experimentation skilled artisans would require to practice an invention using Alden’s Figure 5 segmented headlight with the remainder of Alden’s system as disclosed in Figures 2, 3, and 4, and Alden’s corresponding textual description. We therefore determine that Patent Owner has not shown Alden to lack enablement for its disclosed invention.” slip op. at 20
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have had reason to incorporate Kobayashi’s teachings that its controller receives “road map information” from a “road profile calculating means” and uses it to adjust the headlamp’s illumination. Pet. 63–64. Petitioner reasons that it would be obvious to “apply these teachings to Alden to use map data to identify road curvature when adapting the LEDs of Alden to ‘direct light into the corner.’” Id. at 64 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 122). And Petitioner asserts that skilled artisans had reason to do so because it would “maximize successful detection in different environments” such as where the road lack reflectors. Id. at 65 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 123). Other than as discussed above regarding Alden’s disclosures, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing for claims 28, 36, and 44. We have considered the full record, including evidence and arguments presented by Petitioner and Patent Owner on whether the combination of Alden and Kobayashi discloses each limitation of claims 28, 36, and 44, and whether skilled artisans would have had reason to combine the references’ teachings as asserted. Based on the full record, we conclude that Petitioner has proven that claims 28, 36, and 44 would have been obvious over Alden and Kobayashi. Pet. 62–65.” slip op. at 34
Patent outcomesUS 9,955,551 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - PTAB · Oct 23, 2024 · IPR2024-00676 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–10, 14, 16, 22–23, 25, and 27 on the asserted obviousness ground based on Krantz and Herrmann.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience in networking and network security, and related fields.” Pet. 4. Petitioner also asserts that “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Id.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“combination of Krantz and Herrmann (see Pet 19–99) and find that, on the record as it now stands, Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail with respect to at least one claim. As described above,” slip op. at 16
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportNot reached
“qualifies as prior art to the ’450 patent “because the InfoExpress inventors conceived of the invention [of the ’450 patent] before the effective dates [of Krantz and Herrmann] and exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing the claimed inventions to practice.” Prelim. Resp. 33–45. Petitioner disagrees that the present record sufficiently shows that the inventors of the ’450 patent conceived of the invention before the effective date of Krantz or Herrmann and that the inventors exercised reasonably continuous diligence in reducing that invention to practice. See Prelim. Reply 1–7. In particular, Petitioner raises questions with respect to the independence of Patent Owner’s evidence from the inventor testimony that evidence is intended to corroborate, as well as with respect to whether the evidence offered by Patent Owner sufficiently shows conception, reduction to practice, and reasonably continuous diligence. Id. We do not think the information of record is sufficient to antedate Krantz and Herrmann such that we should deny institution of inter partes review on that basis. First, Patent Owner’s arguments rely on the testimony of inventor Stacey C. Lum, who has not yet been subject to cross-examination. See Prelim. Resp. 35–45 (citing Ex. 2003). Second, Petitioner identifies several issues where further development of the record may be helpful. For example, Patent Owner’s asserted date of conception is associated with the date of an engineering specification included in the record as Exhibit 2011. See Prelim. Resp. 35–36 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 12; Ex. 2011; Ex. 2012). We agree with Petitioner (see Prelim. Reply 4–5) that it is unclear, based on the present record, whether Exhibit 2011 corroborates the testimony supporting Patent Owner’s conception date given that the present record does not establish the author of Exhibit 2011. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 22 (inventor Stacey C. Lum testifying only that “InfoExpress personnel drafted EX2011”). These and other issues relating to the prior-art status of Krantz and Herrmann are, in our view, best left for trial after full development of the record.3” slip op. at 15
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,677,450 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLCSome claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 5, 2024 · IPR2023-00446 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–4, 6–11, and 13–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire and Emerging Threats; claims 5 and 12 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner. The identified aspects of Emerging Threats website would have allowed interested parties to locate the rule sets, download the rule sets and make determinations regarding what rule to use in a packet-handling system, such as Sourcefire. Emerging Threats need not be indexed or broadly searchable under Petitioner’s theory of the ground of unpatentability, namely that Emerging Threats was known, one of ordinary skill in the art would have gone to Emerging Threats, and downloaded the emerging-all.rules file, guided by the documentation wiki. As such, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s argument that “the record evidence of this” slip op. at 16
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel appliesDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Petitioner’s assertions of collateral estoppel, notably in the Petition at pages 47, 49, 51, 52, and 54, with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d], we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner is estopped from asserting that Sourcefire is not prior art to the challenged claims, and also estopped from asserting that those limitations are not taught or suggested by Sourcefire, to the extent that the limitations “do not materially alter the question” of patentability relative to the elements of the claims of the ’552 patent. See Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Independent Claim 1 a. Petitioner’s Assertions As discussed above, we concur with Petitioner that collateral estoppel exists with respect to limitations [1a] through [1d]. Thus, we begin with a discussion of Petitioner’s assertions regarding claim limitation [1e].” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“how and why persons of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the existing rules to prevent exfiltrations. PO Sur-reply 3. Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner’s assertions to make them “drop” rules, per Sourcefire, relies on what an administrator could have done, not what they would have been motivated to do. Id. at 4–5 (citing Pet. 57–58). We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments. We continue to be persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art, combining Sourcefire and Emerging Threats, would have understood that downloaded rules should be reviewed, and it would have been obvious to enable rules that such persons deemed appropriate. We find Dr. Staniford’s testimony to be persuasive on this point. See Ex. 2011, 67:10–68:24, 69:8–72; Ex. 1020, 109. We acknowledge that downloading all of a particualr ruleset from Emerging Threats and enabling all the rules, might have resulted in a drop in performance of the network appliance, but, at the same time, we are significant drop in performance, especially if a potential threat might be sufficient to warrant a minor performance hit. Patent Owner’s counsel acknowledged at oral hearing that instituting all rules of a set in “alert” mode would not result in a decrease in performance, even though some computational outlay must be engaged to engage those alert rules. See Hr’g Tr. 24:24–25:4. We are persuaded that judiciously implementing certain rules would not necessary result in a network device that is unusable. Additionally, there is testimony from Dr. Staniford that “you start out with your rules in alert because there might be false positives. I mean, for the best rule in the world, Snort wasn’t known for false positives in the rules, when you apply them to a large network.” Ex. 2011, 68:2–7. As such, we continue to determine that it would have been obvious, in combining Sourcefire with Emerging Threats, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have downloaded rules and implemented specific rules.” slip op. at 24
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightDecided for petitioner
“Reviewing all of the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the Petition’s obviousness rationale based on Sourcefire and Emerging Threats is not guided by impermissible hindsight bias. We find persuasive Dr. Staniford’s testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that “this rule [SID:2003021] was not directed to looking for instances of exploits or attacks (which would be invisible within the encryption) but rather was looking for exfiltration of some kind of encrypted data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. As discussed by Petitioner, such recognition was also made by Mr. Marinho and Dr. Goodrich, such that the rule would have been understood to possibly prevent exfiltrations. We continue to be persuaded that Petitioner provides that a correspondence exists between the REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2 operator in the ’343 Patent and SID:2003021 in Emerging Threats, in that both detect an SSL/TLS version in application packet header field values to detect exfiltration attempts using out-of-date encryption protocols. Pet. 43 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 229–230). We are ’343 Patent discloses the interruption of a similar type of exfiltration, without resorting to impermissible hindsight bias, that Patent Owner asserts. Patent Owner has provided no evidence that Petitioner used the specification of the ’343 Patent to find an applicable rule in Emerging Threats, as opposed to the testified-version provided by Dr. Staniford that he recalls “working on a similar feature where we looked for large encrypted transmissions outbound from the network on non-HTTP ports as a possible symptom of exfiltration of large amounts of data.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 228. Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,567,343 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,567,343 - PTAB · Jan 17, 2024 · IPR2023-01027 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of all challenged claims on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over the cited prior art.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may institute an inter partes review if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons provided below, and based on the record as it now stands, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it will prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review. B.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenMixed
“Regarding the claimed “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” Petitioner asserts that “Alden’s system can ‘provide illumination to independently controlled segments [e.g., ‘subsections’] each operable within a range of intensities between the high and the low beam state” and that Alden’s “intensities in between high beam and low beam (e.g., medium) are the claimed ‘predefined threshold value’ which the low beam would be below and the high beam would be above.” Pet. 25. We tend to disagree with this analysis, as it does not appear that a “range of intensities” is a “predefined threshold value” or “predefined illuminance,” if those terms are given their ordinary meaning. We thus conclude that, on this record at least, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood that Alden anticipates these claims. Regarding obviousness in view of Alden alone, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner has “failed to establish or demonstrate multiple elements that are required to support an obviousness conclusion, including explaining how Alden must be modified (i.e., identifying the differences between the claimed invention and Alden) and explaining why a POSA would be motivated to so modify Alden (i.e., providing some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support an obviousness conclusion).” Prelim. Resp. 37. We agree. It does not appear that Petitioner has provided any basis on which to account for differences between Alden and the challenged claims based on Alden’s disclosures alone.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“of the alleged invention “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, optical engineering, applied physics, computer science, or similar disciplines, along with two years of experience working with intelligent vehicle systems, automotive control systems, or lighting control systems” and that more education could compensate for less experience and vice versa. See Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed skill level for a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Prelim. Resp. 7), and, as we generally agree that it is consistent with the subject matter disclosed in the ’503 patent and the prior art, we adopt it for purposes of this decision. B.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner does not seek construction of any claim terms and asserts that “all claim terms [discussed in the Petition] are given [their] ordinary and customary meaning.” Petition 8. Patent Owner asserts that “[n]o claim construction is necessary” at this time because its “arguments for denial do not hinge on the outcome of an actual controversy about claim interpretation.” Prelim. Resp. 7. There being no present dispute about the meaning of any claim term, we find that no express claim construction is necessary to resolve the issues addressed in this decision. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy). C.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 10,894,503 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01040 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 48–87 based on the petition’s asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“previously challenged the same claims of the same patent. General Plastic, Paper 19, 16. Here, Patent Owner asserts that although Petitioner did not do so, we should consider Petitioner as having a substantial relationship to Volkswagen, which is also as a defendant in Patent Owner’s infringement suit. Prelim. Resp. 50–51. In that regard, Patent Owner relies on Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 2 (PTAB April 12, 2019) (precedential). We do not agree, because Valve involved parties that were accused of infringement based on the same product. Valve, Paper 11, 9–10. Here, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner is accused of infringing “based on the same type of headlight technology” (Prelim. Resp. 51), but that is insufficient. Patent Owner asserts that both parties’ accused headlights were “developed jointly with Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.” (id.), but that also is an insufficient connection for us to consider two parties substantially related for purposes of discretionary denial. As Petitioner points out, it and VW are direct competitors, and they are accused of infringing based on two different products, not as a supplier and customer of a single product, as at issue in Valve. Prelim. Reply 1. Additionally, although Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner and VW “have a history of coordinating serial IPR petitions against asserted patents” (Prelim. Resp. 52), the facts of each case are unique and we will not infer a motive from prior proceedings. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments,8 we conclude that the first General Plastic factor weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “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.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The parties agree that no express claim construction is required at this stage. Pet. 8; Prelim. Resp. 6. As discussed below, however, Patent Owner applies and argues for a particular construction of “classifying an object.” See infra at 11 (§ II.D.1.a). We discuss that potential construction below. Beyond that term, we agree with the parties and therefore do not further construe the claims for this decision. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms that . . . are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther
“an object is an oncoming vehicle or anything else, i.e., classifying an object.” Prelim. Resp. 17. In Patent Owner’s view, Alden’s CPU instead “simply determines whether detected incoming light has a threshold intensity and controls the beam segments produced by the LED elements 119 of headlight 123 accordingly.” Id. at 17–18. Patent Owner takes the position that “classifying an object requires identifying an object and distinguishing that object among multiple classes or types of objects, such as distinguishing between vehicles, road signs, and pedestrians as described in the ’551 patent. Id. at 18 (citing Ex. 1001, 44:36–45:44, 52:66–53:4). We do not agree that the two specification passages Patent Owner cites compel such a construction. The first passage relates to a preferred embodiment that includes “a machine vision system with pattern recognition capabilities as is known in the art.” Ex. 1001, 44:37–40. The ’551 patent describes that, using known pattern-recognition methods, camera outputs “are analyzed by appropriate computational means employing trained pattern recognition techniques to classify, identify or locate the contents.” Id. at 44:63–45:3. Although the specification states that known technologies can be sued to classify an image’s contents, that does not define or restrict the understanding of what is required to “classify” an object. The second passage states that, “[u]sing color and pattern recognition techniques it is possible to determine what is a sign.” Id. at 52:66–67. To the extent that informs our understanding of “classify,” is supports a simple correlation between an image and an object. It does not include distinguishing the object among multiple classes or types of objects as Patent Owner contends.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - PTAB · Dec 12, 2023 · IPR2023-01039 · APJ Jason W Melvin · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 8, 10–18, and 24–47 based on the petition grounds because Mercedes-Benz showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denialDenied
“1. Lack of particularity First, Patent Owner contends that the Petition lacks particularity under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) because it improperly combines anticipation and obviousness 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), effective March 16, 2013, amended the applicable statutes. Because the application from which the ’551 patent issued was filed before this date, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. 4 US 2003/0137849 A1, filed Jan. 22, 2002 (Ex. 1005). 5 US 6,049,749, issued Apr. 11, 2000 (Ex. 1006). 6 US 2002/0057572 A1, published May 16, 2002 (Ex. 1007). 7 WO 2001/07538 A2, published Sept. 27, 2001 (Ex. 1008). grounds based on Alden alone. Id. at 49–52. We do not agree that the Petition’s approach presents a problem or is hard to understand. As discussed below, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not adequately supported its obviousness contention based on Alden alone (see infra at 17 (§ II.D.2)), but that does not undermine the anticipation ground or make it difficult to understand. Accordingly, we do not agree with Patent Owner that the Petition warrants discretionary denial for lack of particularity.” slip op. at 7
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Denied
“Resp. 54–59. In that regard, Patent Owner relies on Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11, 2 (PTAB April 12, 2019) (precedential). We do not agree, because Valve involved parties that were accused of infringement based on the same product. Valve, Paper 11, 9–10. Here, Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner is accused of infringing “based on the same type of headlight technology” (Prelim. Resp. 55), but that is insufficient. Patent Owner asserts that both parties’ accused headlights were “developed jointly with Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.” (id. at 56), but that also is an insufficient connection for us to consider two parties substantially related for purposes of discretionary denial. As Petitioner points out, it and VW are direct competitors, and they are accused of infringing based on two different products, not as a supplier and customer of a single product, as at issue in Valve. Prelim. Reply 1. Additionally, although Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner and VW “have a history of coordinating serial IPR petitions against asserted patents” (Prelim. Resp. 56), the facts of each case are unique and we will not infer a motive from prior proceedings. Having considered Patent Owner’s arguments,8 we conclude that the first General Plastic factor weighs strongly against discretionary denial.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“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). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART Petitioner asserts that an ordinarily skilled artisan “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.” Pet. 9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 33). Patent Owner does not dispute that level of ordinary skill in the art. Prelim. Resp. 6. We adopt the undisputed level of ordinary skill in the art for purposes of this decision.” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,955,551 - Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 5, 2023 · IPR2022-00974 · APJ Aaron W Moore · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 6–9, 11, 13, 14, 18, 22–25, 27, 28, 32, and 36–38 are unpatentable as obvious over Hwang and McFarland.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention “would have had a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or an equivalent field as well as three years of experience in wireless communication technology, or a master’s degree in electrical engineering, or other equivalent degree.” Pet. 6–7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 38–40). Patent Owner has not proposed an alternative, and, having reviewed the arguments and evidence in the full record, we adopt Petitioner’s definition, as we did in the Institution Decision, finding it consistent with the ’641 patent and the asserted prior art. C.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes a construction for the term “radio network information” in dependent claims 9, 14, and 28. See Pet. 7. Patent Owner has not proposed a specific construction for any claim term and has not disputed Petitioner’s proposed construction for “radio network information.” In view of the analysis below, we determine that we need not expressly construe “radio network information,” and that no other claim construction is necessary. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (explaining that construction is needed only for terms that are in dispute, and only as necessary to resolve the controversy).” slip op. at 10
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedPetitioner expert discountedMixed
“Figure from Page 17 of the Akl Supplemental Declaration We find it unclear from this figure and the associated explanation in the Declaration (see Ex. 1038 ¶¶ 30–32) how the map burst and traffic burst blocks in green and blue factor in, because they cannot be received by the 2.5 MHz device. Dr. Akl testified that “McFarland teaches that necessary messages, e.g., including broadcast messages, or any other messages that need to be received by multiple nodes, ‘must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive,’ that is, the base mode (e.g., the core-band).” Ex. 1038 ¶ 31 (quoting Ex. 1004 ¶ 60). He then states that one “would understand that because Hwang’s AAS_MAP_Burst_Location_IE contains system information and an index of where the MAP bursts are going to be, it is a message that needs to be received by multiple nodes, and thus is a necessary message that must be transmitted in a mode that all nodes to which they are directed are able to receive.” Id. It does not appear, however, that the blue and green blocks could be part of “broadcast messages” intended for a 2.5 MHz mobile station because they cannot be received by that mobile station. We thus do not agree that McFarland would suggest including map burst blocks in the 2.5 MHz band because they are “broadcast messages.” We also fail to see why the map burst locations would need to be received by multiple nodes, as that seems to be data that is tailored to the mobile device with which the base station is communicating.7 However, we do find it readily apparent that if the base station and the mobile station have determined to communicate using a particular bandwidth, as contemplated by the combination presented in the Petition, the map bursts necessarily would be included in that bandwidth in order for the communication scheme to be successful. The mobile station would need to” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 8,953,641 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,953,641 - Cradlepoint, Inc. / Honeywell International, Inc. et al. v. Sisvel S.P.A.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 12, 2022 · IPR2021-00580 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Sachs; claims 3–5, 9, and 10 were not shown unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art Petitioner contends that: A POSITA at or about the time of the alleged invention (January 5, 2006) would have had a degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, with at least three years of relevant industry or research experience, including experience designing or implementing wireless radio systems for data transmission and retransmission. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 40–53). Patent Owner contends that a person having ordinary skill at the time of invention—January 5, 2006—in the relevant art would be one a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer sciences, or telecommunications, along with three to five or more years of practical experience in the field. A combination of more experience in the field and less education or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice. PO Resp. 9 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 27). According to Patent Owner, “[a]lthough Patent Owner’s proposed level of skill in the art is similar to Petitioners’ proposal, Patent Owner includes the qualification that a combination of more experience in the field and less education, or more education and less experience in the field would also suffice.” Id. The parties’ contentions as to the level of ordinary skill in the art are similar, and there does not appear to be a dispute that needs to be resolved. We adopt Petitioner’s definition as it appears to be consistent with the specification of the ’396 patent and the cited references. The findings and conclusions rendered in this Decision would not change had we adopted Patent Owner’s definition.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner proposes “that all claim terms should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning, as understood by a POSITA and consistent with the specification and file history of the ’396 patent.” Pet. 34–35. Patent Owner “agrees that the claim[] terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning” and “reserves the right to provide alternate constructions if any of the terms become material to the Board’s decision.” PO Resp. 10. We need not expressly define any claim term in our Decision in order to resolve the issues before us. 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). We note that the parties both implicitly construe claim limitation 1[c], “stopping the timer when the at least one data block is received from the transmitter while the timer is running, in order to prevent a triggering of a status report before the timer expires” similarly. See e.g., infra § III.D.2.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner
“separate ‘reordering procedure,’ to which the timer is tied.” Id. (emphasis added). We agree that the cited evidence in Sachs more closely supports Petitioner’s position that the “timer is stopped when and because the missing PDUs are received,” and not after the occurrence of some additional step in which PDUs in the RLC buffer are shuffled into sequential order. Petitioner persuasively supports its position with, for example, its annotated version of Figure 5, reproduced above, which depicts that the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received––Sachs does not depict or describe an additional step of reshuffling occurring before the timer is stopped. Pet. 41. Patent Owner’s argument that Sachs teaches “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken” is unavailing because it is not supported by the cited evidence. In support of this argument, Patent Owner’s Declarant, Mr. Regis J. Bates, Jr., offers similar testimony that “the expiry of the timer in Sachs does not trigger a status report as in the ’396 patent, instead a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” but does not explain why the reordering procedure takes place before “any other actions.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 53 (citing Ex. 1003, Figs. 4, 5, Abstract, 8:25–31, 9:11–15) (emphasis added). In his Second Declaration, Mr. Bates adds no further detail or explanation and cites the same portions of Sachs. Ex. 2006 ¶ 29. None of the cited portions of Sachs sufficiently supports a finding that Sachs teaches or suggests that “a reordering procedure is performed before any other actions are taken,” as Patent Owner contends and as Patent Owner’s Declarant testifies. Id.” slip op. at 18
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We clarify that limitations 1[c] and 1[d] cannot both occur in response to the same set of stimuli. Limitation 1[c] can be triggered in response to one set of stimuli and limitation [d] can be triggered in response to a different set of stimuli as is shown in Sachs’s figures. In order for Petitioner to prevail, it need only show one of these mutually-exclusive claim limitations to satisfy the claim, as it contends. Petitioner persuasively shows that, under a first theory, with a first set of stimuli, the timer is stopped before it expires and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[c] are performed as shown in Figure 5 of Sachs. Ex. 1003, Fig. 5. Under a second theory, with a different, second set of stimuli, the timer is allowed to expire and limitations 1[a], 1[b], and 1[d] are performed as shown in Figure 4 of Sachs. Id. at Fig. 4. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 4, PDUs 3 and 4 are not received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer––as such, the T_reorder timer expires and a status report acknowledging PDUs up to 14 and negatively acknowledging PDUs 3 and 4 (i.e., indicating that PDUs 3 and 4 are missing) is sent. Pet. 41. In Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 5, the T_reorder timer is stopped when out-of-order PDUs 3 and 4 are received within the time period set by the T_reorder timer and as such, the T_reorder timer is stopped before it can expire. Id.” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 7,869,396 mixedClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,869,396
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.