• Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. / Accelight Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2026 · IPR2025-01570 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  The majority held claims 1–19 not shown unpatentable: Wang did not anticipate claims 1–10, and Wang with Xiong did not render claims 11–19 obvious.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “field of the ’690 Patent would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study and (2) at least two years of experience with optical data communications or a comparable field of work.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner also states that “[i]ndividuals having different educational backgrounds and supplemental experience might still be of ordinary skill in the art if such experience compensates for any deficiencies in education relative to the criteria stated above” and “[i]n some cases, additional education might be an acceptable substitute for some experience, or vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. See e.g., PO Resp. 9. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the disclosures of the ’690 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “Patent is self-explanatory and would have been recognized by a [person of ordinary skill in the art] as having plain and ordinary meanings.” Pet. 10. “Petitioner submits that no special constructions are required” because “the claim terms appear understandable in the context of the disclosure provided by the specification of the ’690 Patent.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 58). Patent Owner “agrees that the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a [person of ordinary skill in the art].” PO Resp. 10. After reviewing the arguments and evidence before us, we determine that we do not need to expressly construe any claim term to resolve any controversy in the proceeding. 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 8

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Also relevant to our analysis is that this is an anticipation ground and Petitioner is required to show that the reference discloses not only the elements of the claimed invention, but also discloses those elements as arranged in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although our Institution Decision concluded that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its anticipation challenge to independent claim 1 applying Wang (Inst. Dec. 6), at this stage of the proceeding we are required to evaluate Petitioner’s challenges under a higher standard, the preponderance of evidence standard. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner sufficiently establishes that claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Wang by a preponderance of the evidence.” slip op. at 13

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

    “Wang discloses that “the isolator 100 is bonded to the substrate by means of an adhesive” in which “[t]he adhesive is not only used to fix the isolator 100 to the substrate, but also fills a gap between the isolator 100 and the substrate to improve the installation accuracy of the isolator 100.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not explain how filling in a gap between the isolator 100 and a substrate necessarily results in “each of the plurality of optical isolators [being] disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other,” as recited in claim 1. The cited portion in paragraph 43 references Figures 5 and 6, which depict Embodiment 1 of Wang and are reproduced below. Figures 5 and 6 of Wang depict isolators 100, base 311, and baffles 312. Although paragraph 44 of Wang states that “[t]he substrate includes a base 311, and baffles 312 and isolators 100 sequentially disposed on the base 311,” Petitioner does not sufficiently persuade us how Wang’s disclosure “sequentially disposed” isolators necessarily discloses that the isolators are “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” as recited in independent claim 1. Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Although the cited portion in Figure 6 of Wang apparently shows a possibly parallel arrangement of Petitioner cites to Dr. Kirk’s Declaration, but Dr. Kirk does not opine on why cited portions of Wang necessarily disclose or depict the claimed “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” requirement. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 43, Figs. 6, 8, 10. At best, Dr. Kirk testifies that “a POSITA would have understood that Wang anticipates Claim 1.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. Also relevant to our analysis is that this is an anticipation ground and Petitioner is required to show that the reference discloses not only the elements of the claimed invention, but also discloses those elements as arranged in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although our Institution Decision concluded that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its anticipation challenge to independent claim 1 applying Wang (Inst. Dec. 6), at this stage of the proceeding we are required to evaluate Petitioner’s challenges under a higher standard, the preponderance of evidence standard.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 10,788,690 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,788,690
• Cambridge Industries USA, Inc. / Accelight Technologies, Inc. v. Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jul 27, 2026 · IPR2025-00437 · APJ Monica S Ullagaddi · IPR · Final written decision

  The majority held claims 1–19 not unpatentable: Wang did not establish anticipation of claims 1–10, and Wang with Xiong did not establish obviousness of claims 11–19.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “Wang discloses that “the isolator 100 is bonded to the substrate by means of an adhesive” in which “[t]he adhesive is not only used to fix the isolator 100 to the substrate, but also fills a gap between the isolator 100 and the substrate to improve the installation accuracy of the isolator 100.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not explain how filling in a gap between the isolator 100 and a substrate necessarily results in “each of the plurality of optical isolators [being] disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other,” as recited in claim 1. The cited portion in paragraph 43 references Figures 5 and 6, which depict Embodiment 1 of Wang and are reproduced below. Figures 5 and 6 of Wang depict isolators 100, base 311, and baffles 312. Although paragraph 44 of Wang states that “[t]he substrate includes a base 311, and baffles 312 and isolators 100 sequentially disposed on the base 311,” Petitioner does not sufficiently persuade us how Wang’s disclosure “sequentially disposed” isolators necessarily discloses that the isolators are “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” as recited in independent claim 1. Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Although the cited portion in Figure 6 of Wang apparently shows a possibly parallel arrangement of Petitioner cites to Dr. Kirk’s Declaration, but Dr. Kirk does not opine on why cited portions of Wang necessarily disclose or depict the claimed “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” requirement. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 43, Figs. 6, 8, 10. At best, Dr. Kirk testifies that “a POSITA would have understood that Wang anticipates Claim 1.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. Also relevant to our analysis is that this is an anticipation ground and Petitioner is required to show that the reference discloses not only the elements of the claimed invention, but also discloses those elements as arranged in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although our Institution Decision concluded that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its anticipation challenge to independent claim 1 applying Wang (Inst. Dec. 6), at this stage of the proceeding we are required to evaluate Petitioner’s challenges under a higher standard, the preponderance of evidence standard.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Wang discloses that “the isolator 100 is bonded to the substrate by means of an adhesive” in which “[t]he adhesive is not only used to fix the isolator 100 to the substrate, but also fills a gap between the isolator 100 and the substrate to improve the installation accuracy of the isolator 100.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Petitioner does not explain how filling in a gap between the isolator 100 and a substrate necessarily results in “each of the plurality of optical isolators [being] disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other,” as recited in claim 1. The cited portion in paragraph 43 references Figures 5 and 6, which depict Embodiment 1 of Wang and are reproduced below. Figures 5 and 6 of Wang depict isolators 100, base 311, and baffles 312. Although paragraph 44 of Wang states that “[t]he substrate includes a base 311, and baffles 312 and isolators 100 sequentially disposed on the base 311,” Petitioner does not sufficiently persuade us how Wang’s disclosure “sequentially disposed” isolators necessarily discloses that the isolators are “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” as recited in independent claim 1. Ex. 1006 ¶ 44. Although the cited portion in Figure 6 of Wang apparently shows a possibly parallel arrangement of Petitioner cites to Dr. Kirk’s Declaration, but Dr. Kirk does not opine on why cited portions of Wang necessarily disclose or depict the claimed “disposed substantially in parallel relative to each other” requirement. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73, 74; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 41, 43, Figs. 6, 8, 10. At best, Dr. Kirk testifies that “a POSITA would have understood that Wang anticipates Claim 1.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 75. Also relevant to our analysis is that this is an anticipation ground and Petitioner is required to show that the reference discloses not only the elements of the claimed invention, but also discloses those elements as arranged in the claim. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Although our Institution Decision concluded that Petitioner had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to its anticipation challenge to independent claim 1 applying Wang (Inst. Dec. 6), at this stage of the proceeding we are required to evaluate Petitioner’s challenges under a higher standard, the preponderance of evidence standard. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that Petitioner” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “challenge set forth in the Petition by citing the background of the ’690 patent and Dr. Willner’s deposition testimony and characterizing the same as “admissions” of Patent Owner in Petitioner’s Reply, such “evidence” did not form the basis of Appellant’s original position set forth in the Petition.6 Petitioner’s arguments that all of the components recited in claim 11 “were known in the prior art” or that Dr. Willner admitted the same are unpersuasive at least because the Petition did not set forth this position. Contrary to Petitioner’s arguments during the oral hearing, the Petition does not present challenges based on “Applicant Admitted Prior Art.” See generally Pet.” slip op. at 23

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “field of the ’690 Patent would have had at least (1) an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a comparable field of study and (2) at least two years of experience with optical data communications or a comparable field of work.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Petitioner also states that “[i]ndividuals having different educational backgrounds and supplemental experience might still be of ordinary skill in the art if such experience compensates for any deficiencies in education relative to the criteria stated above” and “[i]n some cases, additional education might be an acceptable substitute for some experience, or vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s characterization of the level of skill in the art. See e.g., PO Resp. 9. We adopt Petitioner’s unopposed definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art as it appears consistent with the disclosures of the ’690 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

  Patent outcomesUS 10,788,690 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,788,690
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. Sportscastr Inc. D/B/A Panda InteractiveAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 4, 2026 · IPR2024-01309 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 19–25 and 27–30 are unpatentable as obvious over Ellis and Spivey; the Board did not find the alternative Herzog, Spivey, and Ellis ground established.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “The parties have not addressed whether the differences in these definitions impact the unpatentability analysis before us. We apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’697 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Wicker. We note that we would reach the same determination under Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill.” slip op. at 10

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

    “And Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] with Petitioner’s construction” with respect to the MPF terms. PO Resp. 13. Although Patent Owner also contends that a “POSITA would understand the ‘means for transmitting’ to be a socket server transmitting through an event socket that implements the algorithms described in Figures 2, 3, 21A–21E and accompanying disclosures” (id.), Patent Owner’s proposed further construction is not disputed by Petitioner. See generally Pet. Reply. Furthermore, Petitioner’s proposed constructions of “socket” and “event socket” (Pet. 39) are not disputed by Patent Owner. PO Resp. 2, 13–14. In fact, by arguing that Spivey’s topic queues are neither “uniquely addressable” nor “communication endpoint[s],” Patent Owner appears to adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “socket” as a “uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Id. at 2. As Patent Owner acknowledged during Oral Argument, “I don’t think there’s any dispute of what we mean by socket, a uniquely addressable communication endpoint.” Tr. 73:11–13.6 Thus, on this record, because there is no dispute between the parties regarding the terms “means for transmitting,” “event socket,” or “socket,” construction is not needed. Accordingly, we decline to provide further analysis or an express construction for these terms.” slip op. at 14

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

    “ability for the clients and the server to communicate,” which can be any system that can “provide real-time sports,” but “doesn’t discuss whether it’s a push system or a pull system,” wherein Spivey, on the other hand, “expressly indicates that it is a push type of data system which reduces latency over prior art systems that utilize push technologies.” Tr. 15:13–19. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that, “[a]s explained by Dr. Wicker, . . . a POS[IT]A would have been motivated to implement real-time data delivery using Spivey’s data pushing technique to reduce latency.” Id. at 16:2–4. “[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that Petitioner fails to “articulate why a POSITA would have been motivated to make the necessary modification and proposed combination.” PO Resp. 44. Here, Petitioner points out that its proposed combination would have been made to improve latency issues in Ellis’s system. Pet. 19–24. In particular, Spivey’s discloses that its techniques “may reduce . . . delay [on the order of seconds (e.g., 30 to 45 seconds) or minutes] to an order of milliseconds (ms) (e.g., 100 ms) or less, providing a significant advantage over the conventional practices.” Ex. 1017 ¶ 28. Spivey also discloses pushing data to the “subscribed connected client devices” substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source, e.g., “with a time delay of 100 milliseconds or less,” which Spivey discloses is “at least two orders of magnitude shorter than conventional time periods of legacy devices.” Id. ¶ 96; see also id. at code (57) (disclosing pushing “the topic entry to a subscribed client device substantially simultaneously with the message queue server receiving the topic entry from a live data source”).” slip op. at 51

  • Obviousness (§103) › Objective indicia / secondary considerations › Long-felt need / failure of othersDecided for petitioner

    “demonstrated that a long-felt but unresolved need existed for the claimed invention. See Apple v. Samsung, 839 F.3d at 1056. As Petitioner points out, although Patent Owner argues that there is a long-felt need for a system that “allows broadcasters to deliver synchronized, low-latency video and audio content. . . . ” (PO Resp. 66), Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s showing that Ellis also discloses “a video streaming system that provided event information over a separate channel, which is not hard embedded in the video stream.” Pet. Reply 22–23. Further, as Petitioner also points out, “claim 19 simply requires a media source to receive the live stream of digital content and distribute it.” Pet. Reply 23. In fact, during Oral Argument, although Patent Owner argues that its invention is “the synchronization and the latency improvements through that one-to-many socket architecture,” Patent Owner conceded that the claims “could be broader than that.” Tr. 44:24–46:16. We find availing Petitioner’s argument that the “claim language” does not “relate to any synchronized, low-latency, scalable, flexible, or new and improved video streaming technique.” Pet. Reply 23. Nevertheless, as Petitioner points out, Patent Owner does not cite to any evidence as to any long-felt but unresolved needs. Pet. Reply 23 (citing PO Resp. 67–68). In particular, Patent Owner merely provides conclusory statements that, prior to the claimed invention, “conventional video streaming systems” include “hard-embedded event information,” and that “[t]he claimed invention satisfied the long-felt need for an innovative system.” PO Resp. 66–68. Thus, considering the totality of the evidence, we agree with Petitioner that Patent Owner has failed to establish that there was a long-felt but unresolved need for the claimed invention.” slip op. at 59

  Patent outcomesUS 10,425,697 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,425,697
• Aylo Freesites Ltd v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 2, 2026 · IPR2024-00940 · APJ John A Hudalla · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–11 are unpatentable as obvious over Leaning and over Leaning with Klemets; claims 12–20 were not shown unpatentable on the asserted grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Houh, Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a B.S. degree in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree) and two years of experience in networking or streaming media, or a M.S. in computer science or electrical engineering (or comparable degree).” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 45). Patent Owner does not address the level of ordinary skill in the art in its post-institution papers. We adopt Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art. On the present record, we are satisfied that this definition of the level of skill is consistent with the teachings of the ’234 patent and the asserted prior art.” slip op. at 11

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

    “We determine that no construction of “virtual timeline” is necessary. See, e.g., 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))). Rather, as discussed below, the parties’ dispute appears to be about whether the “virtual timeline” identified by Petitioner is used to arrange the requested streamlets, as is also recited in claim 9. We address that argument below. See infra § II.D.10.” slip op. at 13

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

    “On this record, we determine that the recitation “to achieve continuous presentation” is limiting and requires an amount of continuous (uninterrupted) playback/presentation after an upshift or downshift. The specification describes agent controller 702 determining whether to upshift based on a trigger threshold Θup, which itself is based on various factors including a current read ahead margin and a minimum safety margin. See Ex. 1001, 17:44–58. If agent controller 702 can sustain upshift quality, then it will upshift and request higher quality streams. See id. at 17:58–61. Conversely, when an upshift is not possible, agent controller 702 determines whether to downshift based a different threshold Θdown, which itself is based on the same sort of factors. See id. at 18:4–7. When the stream quality is not adequate, it downshifts. See id. at 18:7–14. These disclosures are similar to the language of claim 12, which recites “repeatedly generating a factor indicative of a current ability to receive the digital content at a rate sufficient for presenting the digital content as the digital content is received, . . . wherein the factor relates to a performance of the network” and “making the successive determinations whether to change the requested bit rate based on the factor to achieve continuous presentation of the digital content using the individually-requestable portions of the highest bit rate one of the copies determined receivable at that time.” Ex. 1001, 20:5–16 (emphasis added). That is, claim 12 refers to “achiev[ing] continuous presentation” based on what is “sufficient for presenting the digital content,” trading quality to ensure continuous playback.” slip op. at 14

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

    “server comprises at least two servers and wherein at least one streamlet is requested from a first of the at least one server and at least one other streamlet is requested from a second server of the at least one server other than the first server.” Ex. 1001, 19:7–12. Petitioner references its mapping of the “at least one server” in claim 1 to Leaning’s server 1. Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1004, 2:15–16, 2:18–22, 2:31–32, 5:8–14, Fig. 1), 23 (citing Ex. 1004, 6:13–26, 9:3–7, 16:6–12), 37; see supra §§ II.D.2.b–c. Petitioner contends that, “[t]o the extent Leaning does not disclose at least two servers wherein one sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a first server and another sub-file (streamlet) is requested from a second server such an arrangement would have been obvious in view of the knowledge of a [an ordinarily skilled artisan].” Id. at 37. Citing the common nature of such an arrangement, Petitioner contends that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide multiple web servers containing the same sets of sub-files for streams in order to have redundancy in the system and allow for clients to establish connections with multiple servers and request a first sub-file from a first web server and, if the connection between the first web server becomes congested or the first web server otherwise fails or becomes unavailable, request a subsequent sub-file from the second web server. Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 85; Ex. 1012, 108,5 Fig. 4-11). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s analysis for claim 3. We are persuaded that it would have been obvious to implement Leaning’s server 1 as two servers that store different streamlets based on Dr. Houh’s uncontested testimony about system redundancy. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 85. His testimony is backed by a contemporaneous reference about HTTP that shows requests for different objects from different servers over parallel TCP connections. See, e.g., Ex. 1012, 108–09, Fig. 4-11. Thus, we determine that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the subject matter of claim 3 would have been obvious over Leaning.” slip op. at 34

  Patent outcomesUS 11,991,234 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,991,234
• Oneplus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. v. Pantech CorporationInstituted
  PTAB · Dec 9, 2025 · IPR2025-00756 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 on three §103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “III. CONCLUSION Because we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable, we institute inter partes review as to all challenged claims and grounds presented in the Petition. At this stage of the proceeding, we have not made a final determination as to the patentability of any of these challenged claims. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314, an inter partes review is instituted as to claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 of the ’803 patent to determine whether: 1) claims 1, 5–7, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over TS 36.300, TS 36.321, and TS 36.331; 2) claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ericsson and TS 25.331; and 3) claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Ericsson, TS 25.331, and Sebire; and” slip op. at 27

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

    “ordinary meaning, “primary” and “non-primary” cells are all cells that the WTRU is connected to (PO Resp. 16), the plain language in claim 1, and similarly in claim 7, does not require a “primary” node or “non-primary” cell to have a connection to the WTRU. See Ex. 1001, 10:38−56; 11:11–26. We find unavailing Patent Owner’s contention that the claims require that the WTRU “be connected to more than one cell,” wherein cells that are “associated with a wireless network node,” but are not connected to the WTRU “at the same time” cannot be “primary” or “non-primary” cells. PO Resp. 16. In the ’803 patent, nothing in the Specification clearly limits “primary” and “non-primary” cells as Patent Owner proposes. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner points to the Specification of the ’803 patent to show that, for softer handover, the WTRU is connected “with more than one cell [] which are controlled by the same Node-B,” and “[o]ne of the[se] cells 808 may be designated as a primary cell 808a, while other cells are designated as a non-primary cells 808b.” Id. (alterations in original) (citing Ex. 1001, 8:44–46, 9:4–6, Figs. 8A–B). However, this portion of the Specification (describing a softer handover embodiment in which a cell “may be designated” as a primary while other as non-primary) does not provide a clear definition to warrant interpreting the “primary” and “non-primary” cells as requiring “connection” to the WTRU “at the same time.” Id. That is, nothing in the Specification clearly precludes “primary” and “non-primary” cells from being “source” and “target” cell, as Patent Owner contends. PO Resp. 16. and the Specification, we determine that the terms “primary” and “non-primary” recited in claims 1 and 7 are not limited to cells connected to a WRTU at the same time. We determine no further explicit construction of this term is necessary to resolve the controversy. See Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803.” slip op. at 8

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

    “f) Motivation to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331 Petitioner contends that a “POSITA would have been motivated to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331 because they are directed to similar technologies and a skilled artisan would have understood the benefits of combining these two references,” and “would have understood that there was a high likelihood of success in making the combination.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 156–157). In particular, the references “are both reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely protocols for handover in a telecommunications system.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 158). According to Petitioner, the combination “involves the predictable use of interchangeable prior art elements according to their established functions” more than routine engineering.” Id. at 37 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 174). At this stage of the proceeding, Patent Owner does not present arguments in the Preliminary Response addressing the specific merits of Petitioner’s contentions with respect to the motivation to combine Ericsson and TS 25.331. See generally Prelim. Resp. 15–18. We find availing Petitioner’s contention that Ericsson and TS25.331 are “directed to similar technologies,” and that a “skilled artisan would have understood the benefits of combining these two references.” Pet. 34. On this preliminary record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that a POSITA would have had a reason to combine the teachings of Ericsson and TS 25.331.” slip op. at 20

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Kakaes, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a B.S. in Electrical Engineering or a related field with at least three years of experience designing, developing, and/or testing telecommunication systems,” and “would also have familiarity with the wireless standards and well-known protocols for accessing wireless networks existing at the relevant time,” wherein “[m]ore education may supplement practical experience or vice versa.” Pet. 12–13. At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,764,803
• Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01334 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Ludtke alone or Ludtke and Kon.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “Id. at 6:18–26. Petitioner argues that “an ATM is not a party to a transaction—the parties are the user and the bank, and the ATM is the mechanism through which the bank’s accounts are accessed.” Reply 5–6 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 13). Similarly, Petitioner argues, a file “is not a principal party to a transaction—rather the user and the provider of the file (e.g., a vendor) are the parties.” Id. at 6 (citing Ex. 1026 ¶ 13). Petitioner makes similar arguments for financial accounts, savings accounts, medical records, and insurance information. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 6:18–26; Ex. 1026 ¶ 14). We agree with Petitioner. The specification, here, gives several examples where the application being accessed is not, itself, a party to the transaction, but rather an asset of one of the parties or the mechanism by which the parties transact.” slip op. at 13

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner notes that a District Court has construed “access message” to mean “[a] signal or notification enabling or announcing access.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1009, 3; Ex. 1010, 15, 20). However, Petitioner “maintains that the Board need not construe the term ‘access message.’” Reply 6. Patent Owner states that it “agree[s] on the construction of the term ‘access message’ to mean ‘a signal or notification enabling or announcing access.’” PO Resp. 7. However, Patent Owner argues that applying “access message” to Ludtke’s transaction confirmation “fails to account for the claim term ‘access to an application.’” Id. at 7–8. Rather, Patent Owner argues, a transaction confirmation “is a message announcing that a transaction has been completed.” Id. at 8. Patent Owner contends that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning of ‘access message’ is a message enabling entry to, communication with, or use of an object wherein the object is the claimed application.” Id. (citing access, MERRIAM-WEBSTER DICTIONARY (available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/access)). Here, Patent Owner appears to retreat on its agreement that “access message” can include a signal “announcing” access, and suggests that we limit “access message” to a signal “enabling” access. However, Patent Owner then returns to its agreement, stating that “[i]t would be improper to construe ‘access message’ as something other than a signal or notification enabling or announcing a user’s access to (ability to enter, communicate with, or make use of) an application.” Id.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “1. Level of skill in the art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent,” and that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 31–32, 53–55). Patent Owner does not challenge Petitioner’s proposed level of skill or propose an alternative in its papers.” slip op. at 18

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for petitioner

    “As explained above, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer or Electrical Engineering or an equivalent engineering discipline, and at least three years of experience in the field of encryption and security, or the equivalent, while additional education could substitute for professional experience, and significant work experience could substitute for formal education. Mr. Carrothers claims to be “a financial services and retail leader with approximately thirty years of experience working in a variety of leadership roles in retail payments.” Ex. 2018 ¶ 1. He lists professional and consulting experience with retail payments, operational and risk management of a credit card portfolio, and payment insurance and acceptances in stores and online. Id. ¶¶ 1–5. His Curriculum Vitae (Ex. 2018, Appendix A) lists education including a Bachelor of Business Administration and a Master of Business has either the technical education or the technical experience to be a person of ordinary skill in the art. In response to Petitioner’s challenge to Mr. Carrothers’ qualifications, Patent Owner does not contend that Mr. Carrothers is at least a person of ordinary skill in the art.7 Rather, Patent Owner argues that “[t]o put the asserted portions of Ludtke in context, Mr. Carrothers provided testimony regarding the processing of credit and debit card payments with respect to online transactions based on his expertise and experience with retail payments.” Sur-reply 1. Patent Owner uses Mr. Carrothers’ testimony to support arguments regarding the timing and parties to the communications generated by Ludtke’s system, and to support arguments that the TPCH is a party to Ludtke’s transactions. PO Resp. 13–17 (citing Ex. 2018 ¶¶ 20–31). We find that Mr. Carrothers testifies on technical details regarding unpatentability, and that a declarant testifying as to such subject matter should have at least ordinary skill in the art. Thus, Mr. Carrothers’ testimony is entitled to no weight. See Kyocera, 22 F.4th at 1376–77.” slip op. at 39

  Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,886,954
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLCInstitution denied
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2025 · IPR2024-01226 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Lenovo had not shown a reasonable likelihood of proving any challenged claim unpatentable under the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “identifies and refers to a valid region of the integrated circuit memory device as having a three-dimensional boundary delimited by phase ranges in command/address signals, data signals, and sampling signals. Nowhere does the ’835 patent specification indicate a valid region of the integrated circuit device as a whole can be represented by values for less than three parameters x, y, and z, all together, e.g., the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Also, the ’835 patent describes that the purpose of determining the boundaries of a valid region is to configure an optimal operating point for the integrated circuit device. Ex. 1001, 5:48–51. We have also considered other language in the claims. Each of independent claims 1 and 7 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operation range.” Ex. 1001, 6:56–7:4, 7:18–34. Each of independent claims 12, 20, and 23 requires adjustment of the phase of all three command signals, data signals, and sampling signals, to determine the “valid operating range.” Ex. 1001, 7:46–60, 8:28–44, 8:62–10:4. Based on the foregoing, the specification informs us that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range. We recognize that the specification does not expressly exclude a two-dimensional range or multiple two-dimensional ranges from being a “valid operation range” of the integrated circuit device. However, that is why we construe the claims to determine what, if anything, may be required despite a lack of express recitation in the claims.” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Citing testimony from Dr. Baker, Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art (hereinafter “POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–35). Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Lee, testifies: “I agree with Petitioner that [Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill] would be the minimum qualifications for a POSITA.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 35. On this record, we adopt Petitioner’s statement of the level of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., that a POSITA “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and two to three years of experience designing high speed computer memory devices.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 34. The stated level is supported by the testimony of Dr. Baker and not disputed by Patent Owner. Further, it appears consistent with what is reflected by the content of the applied prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the applied prior art may reflect an appropriate level of skill). C.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31

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

    “Petitioner still has not made a sufficient showing for limitation [1.4.a]. That is because Petitioner has, at best, identified only two 2-parameter valid operation ranges, i.e., an operation range involving just command and sampling signals, and an operation range involving data and sampling signals. Pet. 29–34. This does not satisfy “valid operation range” as we have construed above in Section III.C. Specifically, we determined that “valid operation range” is a three-dimensional range including a boundary for each of three underlying parameters which, for example, may be the phases of the command signals, the data signals, and the sampling signals. Nowhere has Petitioner identified or explained how Johnson discloses a valid operation range that is a function of three parameters together, e.g., the respective phases of command signals, data signals, and sampling signals. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioner’s reasoning for adjusting the phase of clock signals DCLK, which Petitioner regards as sampling signals, to synchronize with the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus is unpersuasive, because Johnson, as Petitioner has recognized, already adjusts the phase of data signals on the DQ data bus to synchronize with clock signals DCLK. Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 136; Ex. 1004, 4:55–59, 6:46–48, 7:25–31, 7:36–42). The proposed adjustment is redundant and serves little, if any purpose. Petitioner has not proposed to stop adjusting the data signals relative to DCLK. Nor has Petitioner articulated a reason to do the adjustment in both directions, i.e., adjusting the data signals relative to the sampling signals and adjusting the sampling signals relative to the data signals. We have also determined above, in discussing limitation [1.3], that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Johnson’s CCLK signal is a sampling signal. Further, we agree with Patent Owner (Prelim. Resp. 24) that neither delay 55 nor delay lock loop 41 in Johnson’s Figure 4 is used for systematic calibration of any signal or in a signal calibration process. We find that the mere presence of a delay element in a signal path does not reasonably suggest systematic calibration. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,646,835
• TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. / TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v. University Of Rochester (Intellectual Ventures I, LLC)Institution denied
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01245 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, and 12 under § 314(a), finding the Fintiv factors favored denial and the petition did not show compelling merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Institution denied fintivDenied

    “1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv factors”). “These factors relate to whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding.” Id. In evaluating the Fintiv factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review,” recognizing that “there is some overlap among these factors” and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than one factor.” Id.” slip op. at 9

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

    “whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we may not institute an inter partes review (also “IPR”) 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.” However, institution of inter partes review is discretionary. See Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”). For the reasons stated below, we exercise our discretion not to institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “Thus, although Petitioner contends that Njølstad implements a dynamically changeable frequency for each domain wherein a local “rate requirement can dynamically be configured” such that “the locally generated clock rate is just high enough to perform the actual processing task” at that rate (Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1009 § IV.D)), such teaching merely supports Petitioner’s contention that the frequency is dynamically changeable at the local level (id.). However, as Patent Owner points out, such showing is not a compelling disclosure of the frequency generation being independent of the frequencies of the other domains, as required by the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 28–34. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Petitioner has not presented compelling merits that Njølstad teaches “the frequency being dynamically changeable independently of the frequencies of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 8.” slip op. at 25

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

    “However, Patent Owner argues that Iyer published after the invention to the ’443 patent was actually reduced to practice. Prelim. Resp. 27–28. In particular, Patent Owner provides evidentiary testimonies of Dr. Kaeli (Ex. 2001) and Mr. Albonesi (Ex. 2003) to support its contends the ’443 patent incorporates by reference a paper authored by the inventors and published in February 2002 (Ex. 2005), which demonstrates conception by providing a full written description of the claimed invention. Prelim. Resp. 6–16. According to Patent Owner, a simulation described in the paper embodied the invention in a tangible form, wherein the simulation described in the paper showed that the invention worked for its intended purpose. Id. at 16–19 (citing Exs. 2001, 2003, 2005). Similarly, Patent Owner contends that the application from which Soerensen issued was filed on August 29, 2002, which is after the invention date of the ’443 patent. Prelim. Resp. 35. According to Patent Owner, while Soerensen claims priority to the Soerensen Provisional Application (Ex. 1022), the passages from Soerensen relied on in the Petition are not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the Soerensen Provisional Application because the subject matter was not disclosed in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112. Id. We recognize potential merits to Patent Owner’s position. That is, we do not find compelling Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims would have been obvious Iyer or Soerensen.” slip op. at 31

  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• Lenovo (United States), Inc. v. University Of Rochester (Intellectual Ventures I LLC)Instituted
  PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01225 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR on claims 1 and 3–12 across seven § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the asserted combinations.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “whether to institute an inter partes review. Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we grant Petitioner’s request and institute an inter partes review of all challenged claims.” slip op. at 2

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

    “At this stage of the proceeding, we do not perceive a need to construe any claim terms of the ’443 patent for purposes of determining whether to institute trial. See, e.g., 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 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need to be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy”))); see also Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (applying Vivid Techs. in the context of an inter partes review).” slip op. at 8

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner, relying on the testimony of Dr. Baker, contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or the equivalent, and 2–3 years of experience designing computing circuits and systems,” wherein “[m]ore practical experience could offset the aforementioned education and vice-versa.” Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 29–31). At this stage in the proceeding, Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. On this record, we are persuaded that Petitioner’s proposal is consistent with the technology described in the Specification and the cited prior art. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill.” slip op. at 10

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments, which turn on the contention that Georgiou’s clock signals are generated as integer or fractional multiples or divisions of a master clock, and thus, Georgiou “fail[s] to provide the independence required by the Challenged Claims.” Prelim. Resp. 39. In particular, we find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that clock signals generated based on a master clock are not generated independently of the clock signals generated for others of the plurality of domains.” slip op. at 20

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,089,443
• Fubotv Media Inc. / Yanka Industries, Inc. v. DISH Technologies L.L.C.Instituted
  PTAB · Nov 21, 2024 · IPR2024-00919 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution

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

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “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 are not persuaded to discretionarily deny institution, and we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › General Plastic (serial petitions)Institution denied general plasticDenied

    “The Board’s application of these factors “is not limited solely to instances when multiple petitions are filed by the same petitioner.” Valve Corp. v. Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 2, 9 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (precedential). “Rather, when different petitioners challenge the same patent, we consider any relationship between those petitioners when weighing the General Plastic factors,” and if the second petitioner and the first petitioner have a “significant relationship with respect to . . . [the challenged patent],” then the Board will consider the first petition in its General Plastic analysis. Id. at 9–10.” slip op. at 26

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsInstitution denied 325dDenied

    “2. Discussion a. Advanced Bionics Part One We are persuaded that the Petition presents substantially the same art as was previously presented to the Office, such that part one of the Advanced Bionics framework is satisfied. Leaning was not previously presented to the Office, but another reference by the same inventors—U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0030547 A1 (Ex. 2001, “Leaning US”)—was cited during Resp. 14, 16–17) that Leaning is cumulative of the disclosures in Leaning US. See Ex. 2002 (redline of differences between Leaning and Leaning US). Moreover, we find that these similarities pertain directly to Petitioner’s unpatentability analysis in this case. For example, all of Petitioner’s citations to the written description of Leaning for limitation 1[A][2] (see Pet. 19–21) are disclosed in substantially identical language in Leaning US. Compare Ex. 1004, Abstr., 3:1–22, 5:4–6:8, 6:13–7:7, 9:3–7, 12:8–34, 13:23–14:19, 16:6–12, with Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 19–27, 36–43, 45–50, 57, 63–64, 72–80, 90–91. Accordingly, we are persuaded that Leaning is substantially the same as Leaning US, which was previously presented to the Office. b. Advanced Bionics Part Two To determine whether Petitioner has shown material error, we consider Becton, Dickinson factors (c), (e), and (f). Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 10. “Factor (c) focuses on the record developed by the Office in previously reviewing the art or arguments,” and if that record “is not well developed or silent, then a petitioner may show the Office erred by overlooking something persuasive under factors (e) and (f).” Id. As Petitioner notes (see Pet. 69), the record regarding the Office’s” slip op. at 31

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

    “On this record, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning teaches that each copy of the video is divided into sub-files that correspond to different temporal portions of the video. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:20– 28, 3:5–18, p.7 (table). We are also preliminarily persuaded Leaning teaches that each sub-file represents the same fixed time period (e.g., four seconds), and that each of Leaning’s sub-files has a corresponding sub-file in the other copies. See, e.g., Ex. 1004, Abstr., 6:21–7:2 (including table), 12:8–20. Moreover, we are preliminarily persuaded that Leaning’s sub-files each have a time index because the sub-file names are sequentially numbered. See, e.g., Ex. 1007, 7:1–2, 12:16–20, p. 7 (table); Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 71, 73. Accordingly, Petitioner has sufficiently shown that Leaning teaches elements 1[A][3], 1[A][4], and 1[A][5].8 1[B]: “requesting by the media player a plurality of sequential ones of the files of one of the copies from the set of servers over a plurality of Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connections based on the time indexes;” Petitioner contends that Leaning teaches and/or renders obvious element 1[B]. Pet. 29–35. According to Petitioner, Leaning teaches that terminal 3 requests a plurality of sequential sub-files of one of the copies from server 1. Id. at 29–31 (citing Ex. 1004, Abstr., 1:12–19, 2:15–18, 5:4– 6:2, 6:27–7:2, 8:6–16, 23:3–10 (claim 1), 24:28–35 (claim 11), 25:17–20 (claim 16); Ex. 1003 ¶ 79; Pet. 21–29). Petitioner also asserts that an 8 Although we do not reach Petitioner’s alternative contention that element 1[A][5] would have been obvious over Leaning, we will evaluate that contention in our final written decision if appropriate.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,868,772

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.