- PTAB · Oct 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00817 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–20, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on the Boerjes-Geng and Boerjes-Geng-Babayoff obviousness grounds.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“On this record, we determine that Petitioner has developed this ground sufficiently to meet the reasonable likelihood standard for institution. Having determined that Petitioner has met its burden as to its Ground 2 arguments, and because the Board must institute on all grounds or none, SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 364–65 (2018) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a), we institute trial in on all grounds presented in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we address the additional grounds below.” slip op. at 24
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther
“Pet. 16 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–30). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 9
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties indicate that in the co-pending litigation in the District Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), the Court provided preliminary constructions of two specific claim limitations. Pet. 16–17; Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner adds that “district court subsequently adopted these constructions in its final claim construction order.” Prelim. Resp. 8 (citing Ex. 2001). We determine that the constructed limitations do not impact the analysis below, but nonetheless, we adopt this those constructions for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“identify areas that need replacing, such as ‘a margin line’ to be removed, ‘areas of poor margin preparation,’ and ‘holes or areas of incomplete scan[s],’” and that the user can identify regions of a prepared tooth surface requiring additional preparations and “supplemental scanning” (Pet. 32 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 189, 193, 196)), Boerjes is silent with respect to replacing at least a portion of the removed surface portion of the model using the received second scan data of the patient’s teeth, per claim 1. Boerjes certainly contemplates the re-scanning of the dentition, but does not assert partial insertion of new data into an existing 3D model. Even under the “comprising” language of claim 1, for example, the complete replacement of a 3D model cannot teach or suggest “replacing at least a portion of the removed surface portion” without repudiating the language of the claim by making a portion be the entire model. Even if, as Petitioner asserts, “removing portions of a virtual model has been a well-known and routine technique in 3D modeling,” and the “process of replacing a user-identified portion would have been well within the skills of a POSITA” (Pet. 35), the disclosure of Boerjes does not teach or suggest such processes. Although Boerjes allows for the possibility that portions of a model can be identified as needing replacement or supplementation, it does not disclose the partial replacement required by the instant, independent claims. Boerjes’s actual disclosure details that supplemental scanning is used to compensate for an inadequate scan, but not disclosed to be used to stitch together before-and-after models that have undergone an intervening physical change. slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 10,791,936 - PTAB · Oct 27, 2025 · IPR2025-00816 · APJ Kristina M Kalan · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR on all challenged claims 1–19; Ground 1 met the reasonable-likelihood threshold, while Ground 2 was instituted under the all-grounds rule.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva to meet the limitations of the claims challenged under this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva to meet the limitations of the claims challenged under this ground.” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away found
“with Chishti-876’s purported teaching away and disparagement, we note again that “round-tripping” is defined in the Specification as “the technique of moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth.” Ex. 1001, 13:8–12. Chishti-876 teaches that its “path scheduling algorithm determines the treatment path while avoiding ‘round-tripping,’ i.e., while avoiding moving a tooth along a distance greater than absolutely necessary to straighten the teeth. Such motion is highly undesirable, and has potential negative effects on the patient.” Ex. 1005, 14:46–51. The Petition does not expressly address this teaching in Chishti-876, nor does it address the prior Board finding in the ’444 IPR, in which the Board recognized that this teaching constitutes a teaching away from round-tripping. See Ex. 1008, 11– 12. On this record, it appears that Chishti-876 teaches away from “moving a tooth along a distance greater than absolutely necessary to straighten the teeth.” In short, Chishti-876 disparages “moving a tooth along a distance greater than absolutely necessary to straighten the teeth” (Ex. 1005, 14:46– 51) which is a broad statement that appears to encompass the more specific round-tripping movement taught in Becker. Petitioner itself concedes that “indirect movement was understood to be avoided if possible.” Pet. 17. Although Petitioner attempts to characterize indirect movement or round-tripping as a preferable or necessary option (see, e.g., Pet. 15–17), these arguments are insufficiently supported on this record.” slip op. at 27
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of August 30, 2006 (the earliest claimed priority date) would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 11,369,456 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00814 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim over the asserted obviousness combination.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“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 to which said subject matter pertains. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved based on 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) any objective indicia of nonobviousness.7 Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). An obviousness determination requires finding a reason to combine accompanied by a reasonable expectation of achieving what is claimed in the challenged patent. See Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A]ny need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419–20.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away foundMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“tripping” as “any motion of a tooth in any direction other than directly toward the desired final position.” Ex. 1004, 4:12–13. Chishti-511 teaches minimizing round-tripping (“teeth are moved in the quickest fashion with the least amount of round-tripping”), but acknowledges that “[r]ound-tripping is sometimes necessary to allow teeth to move past each other.” Id. at 4:9–15. In an attempt to counter Patent Owner’s teaching away arguments, Petitioner relies heavily on Chishti-511’s statement that “[r]ound[-]tripping is sometimes necessary.” See Pet. 29–30; see also Ex. 1003 ¶ 83 (Dr. Yadav relying on Chishti-511). This reliance is unavailing, because as noted above, Chishti-511 defines “round-tripping” more broadly than is claimed here. Indeed, in the ’444 IPR, the Board stated that “the ‘round tripping’ described in Chishti ’511 is something different than the ‘round tripping’ required by the ’444 patent.”10 Ex. 1008, 16. Despite being aware of this prior finding 10 In the ’444 IPR, the Board employed the same construction of “round-tripping” that we use here. Compare Ex. 1008, 6, with Section II.C supra. (see Pet. 6), Petitioner here fails to address the difference between Chishti- 511’s round-tripping and the claimed round-tripping. That is, Petitioner places great weight on Chishti-511’s statement that “round-tripping is sometimes necessary,” but has not established that Chishti-511 contemplates round-tripping as claimed, as opposed to some other, different movement pattern encompassed by Chishti-511’s broader statement about round-tripping.” slip op. at 21
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“discussion of “need[ing] collision-free treatment paths,” skilled artisans would have turned to Becker. Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1004, 4:15–22). But on this record, and especially in view of the teachings away from round-tripping, Petitioner does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that a skilled artisan would have combined Becker’s movement pattern with the Chishti systems and Sachdeva. In particular, the Petition and supporting materials lack sufficient argument and evidence for us to conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Becker’s movement pattern in the context of an aligner treatment. Becker is a textbook relating to the orthodontic treatment of impacted teeth. Ex. 1006, 1 (Title). Patent Owner correctly states that “Becker is a different orthodontic treatment modality compared to the Chishti references,” using “braces and numerous brackets, wires, and rubber bands, with the wire-and-bracket systems being attached directly and permanently to the teeth.” Prelim. Resp. 21–22; see also supra Section II.D.4. “Becker involves traditional orthodontic practice: manual, by-eye adjustment of its archwires, elastic thread, and palatal wires by a treating orthodontist in repeated office visits.” Prelim. Resp. 22. Chishti-511, in contrast, uses “treatment planning software” to “pre-stag[e] a series of tooth positions from which a sequence of appliances can be manufactured.” Id. On this record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Becker at best shows that round-tripping was an option in limited circumstances involving wire-and-bracket treatment.” See Prelim. Resp. 3. Petitioner does not direct us to any persuasive evidence that using aligners to effect Becker’s tooth transposition “would be appropriate or even possible.” Id. at 22. As Patent Owner correctly notes, Petitioner does not point to any teaching in Becker regarding aligner treatment or corresponding treatment planning software. Id. at 23. Nor are we directed to any portions of Chishti-511, Chishti-876, or Sachdeva that mention using aligners to transpose teeth. These omissions are important because “[i]n contrast to treatment with braces, in which wires are manually adjusted by the orthodontist to move teeth reactively, aligner treatment involves treatment planning in which a detailed path of teeth is calculated in advance.” Id. at 4. Given these differences, Petitioner has not persuasively explained why Becker’s tooth movement pattern and mechanism would have been of interest to a skilled artisan who was” slip op. at 25
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“as of the August 30, 2006 claimed priority date would have been part of an interdisciplinary team. This team would have included a member with an advanced degree related to dentistry (e.g., BDS, MDS, DDS, DMD) with experience in orthodontics, including 1–3 years of orthodontic training or equivalent experience, and experience using clear aligners. The team may have also included members with a degree in a technical area related to software, graphics, computers, or a related discipline. This technical team member would have had 1–3 years of software development experience. For all team members, more education could substitute for experience and vice versa. Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 23–24; Ex. 1017 ¶¶ 23–25; Ex. 1029; Ex. 1030). At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,456,217 - Clearcorrect Operating, LLC v. Align Technology Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Oct 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00815 · APJ Cynthia M Hardman · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because ClearCorrect did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–24 would have been obvious over Chishti-511, Chishti-876, Sachdeva, and Becker.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsDenied
“3. Analysis In view of the arguments and cited evidence, we find on this record that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Becker’s round-tripping with the teachings of the Chishti patents and Sachdeva.” slip op. at 20
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“At this stage, Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative proposal. See generally Prelim. Resp. Because Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record, we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Neither party indicates that any other claim term requires express construction. Only claim terms in controversy need be construed. Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”). For purposes of this Decision, we determine that no other claim term requires construction.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITA
“Court for the Western District of Texas (see supra Section I.B), they jointly adopted the definition of “round-tripping” set forth in the ’879 patent Specification. Pet. 9; Prelim. Resp. 8; Ex. 1013, 8. The ’879 patent Specification defines “round-tripping” as moving a first tooth out of the path of a second tooth, and once the second tooth has moved sufficiently, moving the first tooth back to its previous position before proceeding to a desired final position of that first tooth. See Ex. 1001, 13:9–13. We adopt this agreed-upon construction for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,524,879 - Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00846 · APJ David C Mckone · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–29 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–13, 15, 16, 18–24, and 26–29 as obvious over Burger; claims 3, 14, and 17 over Burger and Robinson; claims 6 and 25 over Burger and …
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“For the same reasons, and based on the same evidence, given in the ’233 FWD, we maintain our construction of “a third party that operates a trusted authority,” namely, “a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction,” and make clear that such a transaction is not limited to those in which the principal parties are the user being allowed access and the application being accessed. Based on the complete record, we do not find it necessary to provide express claim constructions for any other terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we 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 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner contends that “it would have been obvious to a [person of ordinary skill in the art] to incorporate the age verification method of Robinson in Burger so that Burger’s system can be used by businesses interested in conducting transactions that require age-verification.” Pet. 93. Petitioner argues that it would have been predictable to include Robinson’s age-verification feature in Burger’s system in light of Robinson’s explanation that merchants and their employees face penalties if they sell age-restricted goods (e.g., alcohol or tobacco) to underage individuals. Id. at 94–95 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 5; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 79–80). Dr. Traynor testifies that there would have been “a reasonable expectation of success because it merely involves combining known elements in a manner that would have been easily implemented and obvious to” a skilled artisan. Ex. 1003 ¶ 80. We credit Dr. Traynor’s uncontroverted testimony and find that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, to combine the teachings of Burger and Robinson. As to claims 3, 14, and 17, Robinson describes a user registering a biometric sample, identity-verifying information (SID), and age-verifying information with a database of an age-verification system. Pet. 95–96 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 14–15, 28, 43, 48; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 175–178). We find that a skilled artisan would have combined the teachings of Burger and Robinson, such that Robinson’s age-verifying information would have been stored in the database of Burger’s network server 114. Id. at 95 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 176). Patent Owner does not provide separate arguments for claims 3, 14, and 17. PO Resp. 22. limitations of claims 3, 14, and 17, and that a skilled artisan would have had reasons, with rational underpinning, for combining Burger and Robinson. The record does not contain evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Upon consideration of all the evidence, we conclude that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 3, 14, and 17 would have been obvious over Burger and Robinson.” slip op. at 36
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“We find that, after Burger’s network server 114 authenticates a user’s pocket vault ID, the user is granted access to pocket vault 102 and can select a transaction from a displayed menu, including use of a credit card. subsequent access to that credit card information, either by displaying it or through token 102a, is because network server 114 sent a communication to pocket vault 102 indicating that it successfully authenticated the pocket vault. Ex. 1003 ¶ 115. This is the obvious inference a skilled artisan would have drawn from Burger’s description of authenticating the pocket vault and subsequently allowing credit card information to be used. Thus, we find that, in this example, the operator of network server 114 is a third party that operates a trusted authority, the principle parties to the transaction are the user of pocket vault 102 and the retailer, and a message from network server 114 to pocket vault 102 allowing the credit card to be used (displayed or encoded in the token) is an access message allowing the user access to the application (file with credit card information). Accordingly, we find that this example of Burger teaches claim limitations 1.4 and 1.5.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCInstitutedPTAB · Oct 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00562 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–20 on all three § 103 grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.
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
- Prior constructionPrior construction not adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Court provided a construction for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service.” Prelim. Resp. 1–6. Although Patent Owner points to the District Court’s Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order (id. (citing Ex. 2001, 25–26)) to support its contention that the District Court construed the term “enabled,” as we determined in the prior proceedings, this portion of the District Court’s Memorandum merely discusses that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, and discusses exemplary operations of the “hybrid device” from which a POSITA “could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.” See Ex. 2001, 26; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11. That is, a determination of whether a term is indefinite is not the same thing as construing a claim term. Thus, as we previously explained, by determining that “hybrid device” is not indefinite, the District Court did not construe the term “enabled.” Ex. 2001, 26. Accordingly, although the referenced portion of the District Court’s Memorandum indicates that a POSITA could reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim (id.), nothing in the Memorandum provides a construction of “enabled” as Patent Owner contends. Prelim. Resp. 5. That is, we are unpersuaded that the District Court construed that “‘[a]n application, function, or service is ‘enabled’ by a PDK when it receives information from a PDK in exchange for an access key” or that “hybrid device” includes “an RDC that ‘enable[es] one or more of an application, a function, and a service’ when it forwards such a message to the application, function, or service.” Id. (emphasis omitted, alteration in original). Thus, as in the prior proceedings, we determine that “enabl[ing] one or more of an application a function, and a service” does not require receiving information from a PDK in exchange for an access key or forwarding a message to the application, function, or service.” Id.; see also IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and 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))). Petitioner proposes claim construction for “Personal Digital Key (PDK).” Pet. 8–9. Patent Owner does not take issue with Petitioner’s proposed construction for “PDK” but instead requests that we “follow the District Court’s construction” for “one or more of the integrated RDC and integrated PDK enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service,” as recited in claim 1, and “enablement signal enabling one or more of an application, a function and a service,” with respect to claim 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. Because the parties do not take issue with each other’s proposed claim constructions, there is no term of the challenged claims that is in controversy, and thus, we determine that no term requires explicit construction. See Realtime, 912 F.3d at 1375. However, although it is not necessary to construe the term to resolve the disputed issues before us, we note that Patent Owner provides arguments with respect to “enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service” recited in claims 1 and 10. Prelim. Resp. 1–2. We addressed similar arguments with respect to these terms in previous proceedings with related patents (see IPR2024-00405, Paper 8 at 11–12; IPR2024-00407, Paper 8 at 12–13; IPR2024-00784, Paper 12 at 10–11), and we similarly address Patent Owner’s contention in this proceeding.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“have been motivated to integrate an RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device for communication with external PDKs based, in part on the teachings of Giobbi ’139.” Pet. 27. In particular, Petitioner contends that Giobbi ’139 “expressly teaches integrating an RDC into the same type of hybrid device disclosed in Giobbi ’157, a cell phone,” wherein “a ‘Personal Digital Key Digital Content Security System (PDK-DCSS) is used to protect computers from unauthorized use and protect the digital content stored on computers from being wrongfully accessed, copied, and/or distributed.’” Id. at 28 (citing Ex. 1005, Abstract). According to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’139 teaches that RDCs should be incorporated into hybrid devices like cell phones because these devices ‘commonly included’ data storage,” wherein “Giobbi ’139 identified such a configuration as an ‘enhancement.” Pet. 29 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 87–88). Further, according to Petitioner, “Giobbi ’157 teaches that it is advantageous to incorporate PDKs into ‘commonly carried items,’ like phone, since it would eliminate the need for a user to carry a separate PDK device and would reduce the risk of loss.” Id. at 30 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 35; Ex. 1003 ¶ 48). In addition, Petitioner contends that “the Dua patent’s RFID system configuration also provides motivation to integrate and RDC into Giobbi ’157’s hybrid device.” Id. In particular, according to Petitioner, “Dua teaches a hybrid device—e.g., a cell phone—which establishes wireless connections with other devices to enable functions and exchange data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 6:46–65).” slip op. at 18
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,049,188 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 6, 2025 · IPR2024-00561 · APJ Thu A Dang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1 and 6 are unpatentable under § 103(a) over Wainner and Bocci; the Board did not reach the Kamite and Bocci ground.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of the invention of the ’775 patent would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking or a related field,” wherein “[l]ack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa.” Pet. 19 (citing Ex. 1040 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proposal or offer an alternative. See PO Resp. 18. We apply Petitioner’s definition of a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention because, based on the record, this proposal is consistent with the ’775 patent, the asserted prior art, and is supported by the testimony of Dr. Bhattacharjee.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Patent Owner’s argument that a link is a physical connection (PO Resp. 19; PO Sur-reply 2) unavailing. In particular, claims 1 and 6 do not recite any requirement that a “link” is “physical.” Further, as Petitioner points out, there is no support in the ’775 patent for “defining ‘link’ as only a physical connection,” and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. Pet. Reply 5. Although we agree with Patent Owner that a link can connect the interfaces of routers wherein routers are “physical devices” (PO Sur-reply 2), claims 1 and 6 do not require that the link physically connects the routers. That is, the claims merely require a pseudo-wire to comprise a link set up between routers to connect the routers. We agree with Petitioner that pseudo-wires comprising the connection links “can connect to any interface, ‘whether it is a physical, logical, or virtual interface.’” Pet. Reply 5 (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3; Ex. 1042 ¶ 7). In fact, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that “[a] link, . . . , is not limited to a physical connection.” See Tr. 30:6–7.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that a pseudo-wire (“a type of emulated connection”) cannot be the same as a link (“a type of physical connection between router interface”). PO Resp. 20. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any requirement that a link be a physical connection, and thus, does not require that a link differs from the emulated connection of a pseudo-wire. As discussed above, during oral argument, Patent Owner acknowledges that a link is not limited to a physical connection. See Tr. 30:6–7. The ’775 patent itself provides no definition for “pseudo-wire” to support Patent’s Owner’s construction, and Patent Owner does not point to any disclosure in the ’775 patent for such support. As Petitioner points out, the ’775 patent instead supports a construction of “pseudo-wire” as comprising multiple links, wherein “[t]he first and second links constitute a first pseudo-wire pw1” and the second “pseudo-wire ps2 consists of the first link L1 and a second link L3.” Pet. Reply 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Ex. 1001, 6:29–43). We find availing Petitioner’s argument that, even if links were “physical connections” as Patent Owner asserts, “then the pseudo-wire consists of . . . two physical connections,” no different from a link, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion. Id. (citing Ex. 1042 ¶ 10). Although Patent Owner argues that the POSITA has always considered a pseudo-wire as a point-to-point link set up between input and output routers (PO Resp. 5–6), claims 1 and 6 do not recite that a pseudo-wire comprises a point-to-point link set up, and there is no support in the ’775 patent for specifically defining “pseudo-wire” as and limiting the term to a point-to-point link set up.” slip op. at 12
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner
“Dr. Bhattacharjee testified in support of Petitioner’s position that “[a] POSITA would have understood that the ordinary meaning of ‘link,’ . . . includes both physical and virtual connections, particularly in the context of pseudo-wires.” Ex. 1042 ¶ 7. We find availing Dr. Bhattacharjee’s testimony, which is supported by evidence. See id. (citing Ex. 1043, 10; Ex. 1010, 3 (disclosing that pseudo-wires encapsulate “data arriving at the PE-bound port (logical or physical)”), 4 (disclosing that the attachment circuit over which the pseudo-wire is established can be a “physical or virtual circuit”)). For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that a “link” is not required to be a physical connection. Instead, we determine that a “link” connects the interfaces of first and second routers, whether they are physical, logical, or virtual interfaces.” slip op. at 11
Patent outcomesUS 8,130,775 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,130,775 - Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Monarch Networking Solutions LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 29, 2025 · IPR2024-00485 · APJ Kevin F Turner · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Li and Wu; the Board did not reach the instituted Li and Li-2 or Li-only grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related subject, and three years of work experience in computer networking, including experience with the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols, or a related field.” Pet. 10 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55). Petitioner’s description of the level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Samrat Bhattacharjee. Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 53–55. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s description. PO Resp. 19–20. We adopt Petitioner’s description for purposes of this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Lexicography (patentee as own lexicographer)Term construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“As we determined in the Institution Decision (Dec. on Inst. 6), we continue to adopt the constructions of the terms previously construed by the district court. With respect to the claim term “domain,” we agree with Petitioner that the ’844 Patent defines “domain” as “[a] telecommunications network administered by an operator.” Pet. 31 (quoting Ex. 1001, 1:30–31). We further agree that the ’844 Patent does not require the IPv4 and IPv6 domains to each be controlled by distinct entities. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 91.” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. First, the evidence of record indicates that Li and Wu are analogous art. Pet. 70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213– 214. For example, the ’844 Patent, Li, and Wu are all directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, computer networking and routing data packets. Ex. 1001, 1:17–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 213; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1039, 9. Second, the evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings of Li and Wu. Pet. 69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 210. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Wu’s teaching that an IPv6 destination address includes a destination port number. Pet. 68–69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 207. Even if Patent Owner is correct that Li and Wu address the interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 networks from different perspectives, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Wu’s destination port number could be incorporated into the unused padding in Li’s IPv6 destination address. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 210–211.” slip op. at 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s arguments are unavailing. First, the evidence of record indicates that Li and Wu are analogous art. Pet. 70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 213– 214. For example, the ’844 Patent, Li, and Wu are all directed to the same field of endeavor, namely, computer networking and routing data packets. Ex. 1001, 1:17–21; Ex. 1003 ¶ 213; Ex. 1037, 1; Ex. 1039, 9. Second, the evidence of record indicates that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the cited teachings of Li and Wu. Pet. 69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 210. As discussed above, Petitioner relies on Wu’s teaching that an IPv6 destination address includes a destination port number. Pet. 68–69; Ex. 1003 ¶ 207. Even if Patent Owner is correct that Li and Wu address the interoperability of IPv4 and IPv6 networks from different perspectives, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that Wu’s destination port number could be incorporated into the unused padding in Li’s IPv6 destination address. Pet. 69–70; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 210–211.” slip op. at 15
Patent outcomesUS 8,451,844 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,451,844 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · 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 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954 - Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 17, 2025 · IPR2024-00233 · 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
“In short, Patent Owner points to no language in the specification limiting the claims to transactions in which the application being accessed is, itself, a party to the transaction and Petitioner points to several examples in which the application being accessed is not a party to the transaction. Thus, Patent Owner has provided no persuasive basis to depart from the plain and ordinary meaning of the claims.” slip op. at 14
- 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” 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
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“3. Differences, if any, between claims 1, 2, 4–7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 22–27 and Ludtke; reasons to modify Regarding claim limitations 1ai, 1aii, and 1aiii, Petitioner argues that Ludtke teaches persistently storing, in a user identity/account information block of the transaction device, biometric information (e.g., fingerprint, retinal scan, voice, DNA, hand profile, face recognition), a plurality of codes and other values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying the transaction device (e.g., globally unique silicon ID (GUID), magnetic strip, bar codes), and a secret decryption value (e.g., public key infrastructure (PKI) public keys and private keys). Pet. 9–21 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:11–20, 8:63–67, 9:18–25, 10:64–67, 11:1–5, 13:27–29, 13:39–41, 14:13–21, 19:9– 14, 19:29–40, 23:11–19, 30:18–27, 37:39–45, 38:1–3, 38:9–21, 38:25–29, 38:40–61, 39:7–18, 40:5–26, Figs. 7B–7C, 27, 33; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 73–94). Patent Owner does not contest Ludtke’s applicability to these aspects of claim 1. Based on Petitioner’s evidence, we find that Ludtke teaches claim limitations 1ai, 1aii, and 1aiii. More particularly, we find that Ludtke’s fingerprint, retinal scan, etc., are “biometric data”; that Ludtke’s GUID, magnetic strip, etc., are examples of “a device ID code uniquely identifying an integrated device”; and that PKI keys are examples of “a secret decryption value.” transaction device requests and receives a fingerprint sample or other biometric data. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1005, 14:33–42, 14:40–46, 16:47– 50; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 95–96). As to claim limitation 1c, Petitioner argues that Ludtke’s transaction device compares the fingerprint sample to stored authorized samples to determine a match. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1005, 14:40– 46; Ex. 1003 ¶ 97). Patent Owner does not contest Ludtke’s applicability to these aspects of claim 1. We agree with Petitioner and find that Ludtke teaches claim limitations 1b and 1c.” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,886,954 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,886,954
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.