- PTAB · Nov 7, 2025 · IPR2025-00988 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1–14 because Samsung took alternative claim-construction positions in the Board and district court without explaining why.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“decision in Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., IPR2025-00632, Paper 20 (Nov. 3, 2025 (“Revvo”)).12 Revvo provides that “when a petitioner takes alternative positions [on claim construction] before the Board and a district court, that petitioner should, at a minimum, explain why alternative positions are warranted.” Revvo at 3–4. On November 5, 2025, the Director of the Office issued an informative decision in Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025- 00340, Paper 18 (Nov. 5, 2025) (“Tesla”)). Tesla provides that: “Allowing a petitioner to advance a claim construction before the Board when that petitioner has made inconsistent indefiniteness arguments in district court fails to further, but instead detracts from, the Office’s goal of ‘providing greater predictability and certainty in the patent system.’” Id. at 4 (citing Revvo at 4–5). Tesla further provides that when a petitioner raises inconsistent invalidity challenges in two forums, “that petitioner is required to explain why those different positions are warranted.” Id. at 3 (citing Revvo at 3–5). In this proceeding, Petitioner takes alternative positions on claim construction before the Board and a district court, but fails to explain why alternative positions are warranted. Therefore, in accordance with Revvo and Tesla, we deny institution.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“CONCLUSION For the foregoing reason, we determine that trial should not be instituted on claims 1–14 of the ’281 patent. ORDER Upon consideration of the record before us, it is ORDERED that an inter partes review is not instituted.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Not reached
“In the Petition, “Petitioner submits that no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 3. Petitioner does not discuss its position on claim construction in district court nor why alternative positions before the Board and the district court are warranted. See id.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,687,281 - PTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00936 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–16 over all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1 over Lee.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we find Petitioner’s contentions persuasive. As noted above, Lee states the following: “[I]f the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame related to multiuser transmission, the STA may not perform the change of the CCA level irrespective of information indicated by the coloring bit.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. Even though the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame for multiuser transmission, Lee states that “the coloring disable bit can also be comprehended as a bit indicating that CCA level change is not performed.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. This supports Petitioner’s contention that the coloring disable bit is signaling information that indicates that a CCA level change is not allowed, even if it indicates other things as well. See Pet. 12.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art need not be defined as of the critical date, we disagree. Under Section 103, we must determine “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains” (emphasis added). “Obviousness is determined from the vantage point of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art to which the patent pertains.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, we define the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art as of a time before the effective filing date. To the extent Patent Owner’s argument is that, to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, one need not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the critical date, we agree. Although one must at least possess ordinary skill in the art to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention. Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., 116 F.4th 1335, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2024). To the extent necessary, and for purposes of this Decision, we accept the uncontested assessment offered by Petitioner, which appears consistent with the ’597 patent and the asserted prior art, except that we delete the qualifier “at least” to eliminate vagueness as to the amount of experience.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction The parties agree that no claim terms require express construction. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- BurdenInstituted
“On this record, we find Petitioner’s contentions persuasive. As noted above, Lee states the following: “[I]f the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame related to multiuser transmission, the STA may not perform the change of the CCA level irrespective of information indicated by the coloring bit.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. Even though the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame for multiuser transmission, Lee states that “the coloring disable bit can also be comprehended as a bit indicating that CCA level change is not performed.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. This supports Petitioner’s contention that the coloring disable bit is signaling information that indicates that a CCA level change is not allowed, even if it indicates other things as well. See Pet. 12.” slip op. at 10
Claim constructioncites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,700,597 - PTAB · Nov 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00935 · APJ Daniel J Galligan · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–16 on all petitioned grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on at least one challenged claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we find Petitioner’s contentions persuasive. As noted above, Lee states the following: “[I]f the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame related to multiuser transmission, the STA may not perform the change of the CCA level irrespective of information indicated by the coloring bit.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. Even though the coloring disable bit indicates that the frame corresponds to a trigger frame for multiuser transmission, Lee states that “the coloring disable bit can also be comprehended as a bit indicating that CCA level change is not performed.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 68. This supports Petitioner’s contention that the coloring disable bit is signaling information that indicates that a CCA level change is not allowed, even if it indicates other things as well. See Pet. 13.” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“To the extent Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art need not be defined as of the critical date, we disagree. Under Section 103, we must determine “if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains” (emphasis added). “Obviousness is determined from the vantage point of a hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art to which the patent pertains.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, we define the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art as of a time before the effective filing date. To the extent Patent Owner’s argument is that, to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art, one need not have been a person of ordinary skill in the art as of the critical date, we agree. Although one must at least possess ordinary skill in the art to testify from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill, time of the invention to be able to testify from the vantage point of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Rather, an expert can acquire the necessary skill level later and develop an understanding of what a person of ordinary skill knew at the time of the invention.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction The parties agree that no claim terms require express construction. Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 8. On this record, we determine that no terms need express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successOther
“On this record, it is not entirely clear that comparing a BSS color value to determine if a receiving station is in that BSS is prohibited by the claim’s recitation “not to use” a BSS color, as Patent Owner’s argument implies. Rather, claim 1’s recitation “not to use a Basic Service Set (BSS) color when signaling information indicates that an operation based on the BSS color is not allowed” appears directed to prohibiting a particular operation based on the BSS color, not necessarily disregarding the BSS color entirely. Further, comparing BSS values to determine BSS identity appears consistent with claim 1’s recitation that “the BSS color is an communication terminal recognizes that a BSS color collision has occurred.” On this record, it appears that BSS color would need to be identified to determine if a color collision occurs. See Prelim. Resp. 4 (“BSS color collisions occur when two or more BSSs operating on the same frequency channel (and overlapping in coverage area) use the same BSS color. See ’163 Patent at 2:46-59, 10:41-62. In other words, a wireless communication terminal receives a signal with the same BSS color that device understands applies to it, even though the signal is intended for another device in a different BSS (albeit using the same BSS color). When a color collision is detected, the wireless communication terminal reports to the base wireless communication terminal, which will indicate that a color collision has occurred. ’163 Patent at 3:16-20.”). In that light, we see some merit in Petitioner’s position that an “operation based on BSS COLOR (e.g., allowing access and re-using the channel) is not allowed” based on the Low Power/High Interference Indicator, even if some reference is made to the BSS color to resolve a condition precedent to that determination, namely whether the data are from a different BSS. See Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶ 26; Ex. 1003 ¶ 170). Petitioner’s second theory is based on setting the color field to a reserved value of “0000,” which Petitioner argues “indicates that operations based on BSS COLOR are not allowed and the receiving STA does not use BSS COLOR.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 25, 29; Ex. 1003 ¶ 172). On this record, we question how setting a color value to 0000 can teach the subject matter of claim 1, which also requires that “the BSS color is an identifier of a BSS.” Petitioner acknowledges that a reserved value of 0000 in the color field does not identify a BSS. See Pet. 54–55 (asserting that a that a COLOR field value of ‘0000’ does not represent a valid BSS identifier”). We also recognize, however, that claim 7, depending from claim 1, recites “the BSS color indicated by the signaling field of the PPDU is a predetermined value” and that claim 8, depending from claim 7, recites that the predetermined value is 0. Thus, Choudhury’s reserved value disclosures appear to teach this subject matter of claims 7 and 8, even if claims 7 and 8 are inconsistent with claim 1’s requirement that “the BSS color is an identifier of a BSS.” See Ex. 1001, 21:23–30 (disclosing that the BSS color value may be set to a predetermined value such as zero).” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,129,163 - PTAB · Nov 3, 2025 · IPR2025-00934 · APJ Terrence W Mcmillin · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–9 are obvious over Bharadwaj and Sun.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“institute review. Paper 11. The standard for institution is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that inter partes review may not be instituted unless “there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” After considering the Petition and the Preliminary Response, as well as the evidence of record, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–9 of the ’210 patent.” slip op. at 2
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedNot reached
“We are aware, however, that we must not confuse access with accessibility. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Infobridge Pte. Ltd., 929 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[A] petitioner need not establish that specific persons actually accessed or received a work to show that the work was publicly accessible.”). Dr. Hansen notes that the cover of 802.11ax_D1.0 grants permission to reproduce the document to others for consideration. Ex. 1026 ¶ 72; see Ex. 1004, 1 (“Permission is hereby granted for IEEE Standards Committee participants to reproduce this document for purposes of international standardization consideration.”). Dr. Hansen also testifies that meetings to discuss 802.11ax_D1.0 were open to the public. Ex. 1026 ¶ 58 (citing Appendix J to declaration). Thus, it appears, on the current record, that the purpose of 802.11ax_D1.0 was to promote dialogue with interested artisans, which indicates public accessibility. See Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions Ltd., 8 F.4th 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have previously held that where a publication’s purpose is ‘dialogue with the intended audience,’ that purpose indicates public accessibility.” (citation omitted)). After having reviewed all the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, we would like to see further development of this issue during trial. The current record is not well-developed on this issue either factually or legally. With regard to the factual record, Patent Owner has not yet had the opportunity to depose Dr. Hansen or been given a full opportunity to marshal its own evidence on this issue. With regard to the law, we would like to see the parties apply the relevant case law to the developed facts as to the public accessibility and prior art status of 802.11ax_D1.0. We will determine, if necessary and appropriate, whether 802.11ax_D1.0 is prior art to the challenged claims of the ’210 patent based on the full record as developed during trial.” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“As an initial matter, Bharadwaj and Sun are both analogous art to the ’210 Patent in that that they are both concerned with the design of the PHY data unit for supporting MU-MIMO transmissions in the downlink. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153- 158. . . . In addition, both Bharadwaj and Sun describe MU- MIMO downlink PHY data unit structures in the context of 802.11ax. SAMSUNG-1013, ¶[0064]; SAMSUNG-1015, ¶[0031]; SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153-158. . . . . [A] POSITA implementing Bharadwaj’s preamble designs would have been motivated to look to another reference, like Sun, for an understanding of the format of the user field that would support non-MU-MIMO allocations and the single-user transmission scenario. A POSITA would have combined the teachings of Bharadwaj with Sun to realize implementation details for the HE-SIG-A and HE-SIG-B fields of the HE MU PPDU to better support both MU-MIMO and non-MU-MIMO allocations. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153-158. . . . . A POSITA would have found it obvious to look to Sun for modifying Bharadwaj to include the user field format for SU (non-MU-MIMO) allocation to complement Bharadwaj’s disclosure of the MU-MIMO user field format and to provide a more complete system that would allow HE MU PPDUs to support both MU-MIMO allocations for multiple users and non-MU-MIMO allocations for a single user. SAMSUNG- 1003, ¶¶153-158. The combination also would have been obvious and predictable for at least the following reasons: 1) both Bharadwaj and Sun describe designs for a PHY data unit (or PPDU) to support communications between an AP and a station within a high-efficiency Wi-Fi network, consistent with 802.11ax; 2) both Bharadwaj and Sun describe the PPDU design for supporting MU-MIMO downlink transmission as including HE- SIG-A and HE-SIG-B fields; and 3) Bharadwaj already describes the format for the user field for the MU-MIMO allocation, while also recognizing the single-user scenario, and the combination merely involves the addition to Bharadwaj of the user field format for the single-user allocation, as taught by Sun. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153- 158. The combination is obvious also because elements of the combined system would each perform similar functions they had been known to perform in similar contexts outside the combination. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153-158. . . . . A POSITA would have reasonably expected success implementing the combination, especially considering the substantially similar 802.11ax techniques described in each reference. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153-158. Additionally, combining the teachings of Bharadwaj with Sun would have merely involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. SAMSUNG-1003, ¶¶153-158.” slip op. at 31
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that “no formal claim constructions are necessary.” Pet. 2. Patent Owner notes that “both parties have submitted terms for construction in the district court for this Patent” (Prelim. Resp. 6), but that “for purposes of [the] Preliminary Response, Patent Owner applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the challenged claims” (id. at 8). Accordingly, at this stage, no need exists to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes.9 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe 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 9
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,159,210 - Exotec Product France SAS / Exotec North America Inc. et al. v. Opex CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00850 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3–12, 14, and 23–27 are unpatentable as obvious over Raizer and Hangzhou.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art We consider the asserted grounds of unpatentability in view of the” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“C. Claim Construction Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes an express construction” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“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. In this case, we must determine whether one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hangzhou’s disclosure of driving its auto-guided trolleys 200 under shelves 100 would improve the operation of Raizer’s system in the same way. For us to resolve this question in Petitioner’s favor, Petitioner must provide “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). However, bodily incorporation, i.e., “an actual physical substitution of” Hangzhou’s auto-guided trolleys or operating software into Raizer’s system, is not required. See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.”).” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 11,472,632 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,472,632 - PTAB · Oct 21, 2025 · IPR2025-00057 · APJ Hung H Bui · IPR · Remand
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the conjunctive construction required a hardware action, which the asserted grounds did not show.
RulingsRemand decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)); see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) (requiring a petition for inter partes review to identify how the challenged claim is to be construed and where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed publications relied upon). This burden of persuasion never shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (discussing the burden of proof in inter partes review). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) when the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.4 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”)). Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“(1) The Claim Language Supports a Conjunctive Construction There is a “heavy presumption” that the terms used in claims “mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.” SuperGuide, at 875 (citing Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed.Cir.2002)).” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner. First, the construction of the phrase “at least one of [A] the display, [B] the audio and [C] the hardware (HW) action” is conjunctive in light of the language of the claims and the specification of the ’887 patent. As such, Petitioner has the burden, but fails to show all three (3) components to be reproduced at Yun’s mobile device, including: [A] the display, [B] the audio and [C] the hardware (HW) action by the HW component of the mobile device. Second, as Patent Owner observes, and we agree, “Petitioner ignores the requirement for ‘the hardware (HW) action’ entirely” and does not even mention any “hardware (HW) action.” Prelim. Resp. 14 (Paper 10).” slip op. at 34
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDecided for patent owner
“6 In the Petitioner’s Reply to the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Petitioner presents several arguments to address the Fintiv factors, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). In support of Factor 6, Petitioner argues for the first time that Overton (not Yun or Lu) is allegedly teaching “the hardware (HW) action” aspect of the claims. Prelim. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1006, 11:13–24 “force feedback . . . to the input devices 142 [shown in Figure 1]”). However, we decline to consider this belated argument raised for the first time in the context of a Fintiv analysis instead of the Petition.” slip op. at 41
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,934,887 - Google LLC v. Dialect, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00753 · APJ Jon M Jurgovan · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 12 is unpatentable as obvious over Kennewick and Ross because their combination teaches each limitation and a skilled artisan would have had reason to combine them with a reasonable expectation of success.
RulingsFinal written decision- BurdenUnpatentable
“A. Legal Principles “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden of persuasion never shifts to the patent owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The burden of production, however, may shift between the petitioner and patent owner as arguments and evidence are presented during the proceeding. Id. A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) to which said subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.2 See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends a POSITA pertaining to the ’160 patent “would have possessed a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science, and two years of work experience in the field of speech and natural language-interfaces for interacting with and directing computer systems and software, including speech recognition and processing (and more experience could substitute for less formal education, and vice versa).” Pet. 10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 11–15. Patent Owner does not respond to Petitioner’s formulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art. See PO Resp. generally. We determine that Petitioner’s proposed skill level is consistent with the problems and solutions identified in the ’160 patent and the prior art references asserted by Petitioner. In addition, we find the 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). Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed skill level to apply in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“After review of the evidence, we determine that the record does not support Patent Owner’s construction of “expected contexts” as “a subset of the contexts in a context stack.” PO Resp. 16–17. The sole mention of “expected contexts” in the ’160 patent’s description is the following: “The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may access a set of expected contexts that are stored in a context stack to determine a most likely context.” Ex. 1001, 13:66–14:2. This statement does not provide any definition for “expected contexts.” Although the ’160 patent’s description mentions a “set,” this is not the same as a “subset” as Patent Owner proposes in its construction. Similarly, claims 1, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’160 patent recite “one or more expected contexts” but do not elaborate further on what an “expected context” is. Likewise, “expected contexts” were mentioned but not discussed or defined in the prosecution history of the ’160 patent. Ex. 1012, 281, 305, 382. Consequently, we decline to restrict the construction of “one or more expected contexts” as Patent Owner proposes. To the extent that Patent Owner so argues, we do not consider “expected contexts” to require the use of “context specific matchers.” In this regard, the ’160 patent states that “knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context.” Ex. 1001, 14:2–6 (emphasis added). Hence, the ’160 patent states that “contexts” may be identified using “context specific matchers” but this is not required. We further decline to interpret “one or more expected contexts” to exclude “possible contexts” as Patent Owner argues. Simply put, we find no support in the ’160 patent or elsewhere that “expected contexts” cannot be “possible contexts” or that the two terms are mutually exclusive of one another. Although the ’160 patent mentions scoring “possible contexts” (Ex. 1001, 21:7–9), we find no reason why these “possible contexts” cannot also be “expected contexts.” Although we agree with Petitioner that “expected contexts” are ones” slip op. at 13
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. However, in its Sur-reply, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner’s combination “makes no sense” because Ross’s contexts are arranged in order by recency of access such that no scoring is required to find a selected context, whereas Kennewick scores every context in the context stack to select a context. PO Sur-reply 9–10. Patent Owner further argues that Ross’s context grammars are fixed whereas Kennewick’s are dynamic according to prior utterances, and that Ross’s search ends upon finding a match whereas Kennewick scores the entire context stack. Id. at 10. Patent Owner’s late arguments, to which Petitioner has not had an opportunity to respond, do not undermine Petitioner’s proposed motivations to combine with reasonable expectation of success. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). Patent Owner’s arguments hinge on its assertion that “expected contexts” are not scored and are dynamic, but the ’160 patent does not define “expected contexts” in this way. See § III.C, supra. Furthermore, we do not agree that Ross’s search necessarily ends upon finding a match or that Kennewick and Ross are otherwise incompatible. See Inst. Dec. 19–22. Thus, we find that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine Kennewick and Ross with a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the claimed invention. 4.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 7,640,160 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,640,160 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00653 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution on all claims because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that any challenged claim was unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’504 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Additionally, only terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and these need be construed only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 72); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Ex. 1002 ¶ 47. As reflected above, Dr. Wooley’s testimony as to element [1.2] does not even assert that Cardamone discloses a tank, let alone one or more sensors disposed at a tank as recited in element [1.2]. Thus, Dr. Wooley’s testimony does not support Petitioner’s argument on this issue.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,726,504 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00652 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–23 and 25–30 were unpatentable over the asserted grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’403 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“The parties assert that each claim term should be construed in accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 10; Prelim. Resp. 4 (citing Ex. 2009 ¶ 73); see Ex. 1002 ¶ 22 (opining the same). And, in the respective claim construction sections of their briefs, the parties do not propose any claim terms for express construction. We agree with the parties that no claim terms require express construction to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition fails to demonstrate that Kahn discloses element [1.2] because the evidence cited does not disclose a “first computer system being configured to provide remote control of the first pump or first valve” (i.e., a fluid-handling device). Kahn is directed to providing access to fluid sensing data and analyzing and providing visual information on that data, but Petitioner has not identified any disclosure of the capability to remotely control fluid-handling devices. See, e.g., Ex. 1005, code (54), 1:27–36, 2:50–3:2. More specifically, Kahn’s disclosures that Petitioner relies on for allegedly teaching remote control are deficient. We discuss each. First, Petitioner points to the following, “[f]or instance, as illustrated in FIG. 1C, a fluid control device such as a valve 15A is located on the input side of a sen[s]or unit 110.” Ex. 1005, 8:19–21, cited in Pet. 13. This portion of Kahn, however, does not disclose remote control. Second, Petitioner cites to the following: Finally, or in addition to, the communication unit 112B can include on-site alerts such as optical (indicator lights), audible alerts (e.g., alarm sounds), tactile (e.g., vibration of the unit) or can be interfaced to an appropriate control valve for simply shutting off the supply of fluid upon the detection of emergency events, for instance. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005, 10:62–67). We agree with Patent Owner that this portion of Kahn teaches on-site alerts and local control of the fluid-handling device. See Prelim. Resp. 7. This portion of Kahn does not disclose remote control.” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,294,403 - Tanklogix, LLC v. Sitepro, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00651 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–3, 6, 7, and 9–20 were unpatentable over any asserted ground.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] 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) (2024). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill in the art are similar, although Patent Owner proposes two years of experience along with a bachelor’s degree whereas Petitioner proposes “significant” experience. Patent Owner also proposes an alternative with more extensive experience in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. Although we find Petitioner’s proposed qualifications acceptable, we adopt Patent Owner’s proposed qualifications for the purposes of this Decision because they offer a wider range of qualifications that nonetheless comport with the level of ordinary skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’680 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978). Our analysis and findings herein, however, do not turn on any differences in the parties’ proposed qualifications.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“target value” is part of a command that is sent from a computing device to a server and then to a controller. The controller then receives a measurement of the fluid by a sensor and determines whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” If the measurement does not satisfy the “target value,” further operations are undertaken. The recited operation sequence makes clear that the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” is not as Dr. Wooley opines because the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time is represented by the measurement taken by the sensor, 11 Some claim language less relevant to construing “target value” was omitted for ease of reference. which the controller then uses to determine whether the measurement satisfies the “target value.” Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “target value” is sent as part of a command to the controller. The “target value” is not sent to the controller from the sensor, as might be expected if the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value” were as Dr. Wooley opines. Petitioner and Dr. Wooley’s construction would also result in “target value” meaning effectively the same thing as the measurement of the fluid by the sensor, a concept that is separately recited in claim 1 and to which the “target value” is compared. The Specification of the ’680 patent does not support Petitioner’s understanding of the plain and ordinary meaning of “target value.” Although the Specification does not recite “target value,” it recites “target state,” and describes “target state” sufficiently to understand the plain and ordinary meaning of “target” as used in “target value” and “target state.” In particular, the ’680 patent explains that “[i]n some embodiments, the process 104 includes receiving, via a network interface, from a remote user device, (e.g., via a command-center server) a command to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state.” Ex. 1001, 11:48–51. This portion reflects that the command is seeking to change a state of a fluid-handling device to a target state. In other words, the “target value” or “target state” is not generally “the particular operating condition that a device is in at a particular time”; rather, it is a value or state that the fluid-handling device is desired to be in, as Patent Owner and Dr. Durham explain. Additionally, just as claim 1 recites a directional component for the “target value” to be sent to the controller in a command, so too does the Specification describe a “target state” as being sent in a command from a remote user device. Thus, the Specification clearly supports the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Patent Owner and Dr. Durham and not the plain and ordinary meaning proposed by Petitioner and Dr. Wooley. slip op. at 14
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“time-stamped process data, report exception therein to the remote host, and extract and transmit time-stamped process data to the remote host.” Ex. 1005, Abst. (emphases added). Almadi explains that its remote field systems must include a plurality of controller units “to issue commands to, and gather and process data from a plurality of field devices, including remote systems and instruments, . . . [and] a database server for the storage of process data retrieved from the remote subsystems and instruments.” Id. at 2:22–30 (emphases added). Based on these disclosures, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established that Almadi discloses element [1.4]. Specifically, the teachings from Almadi identified by Petitioner refer to process data, which is data retrieved from the remote subsystems/field devices. Thus, we understand that Almadi’s teaching—of using an Ethernet switch to transmit “process data”—describes transmitting data from the remote subsystems/field devices. See Ex. 1005, 3:13–17, cited in Pet. 15. But claim 1 and particularly element [1.4], recites “sending, with the server, the target value to the network address [which identifies a controller of the fluid-handling device13] via the network,” which is different than sending process data from the field devices to the remote host or database server for storage.” slip op. at 19
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,175,680
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.