- Microsoft Corporation v. Sterling Computers CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 14, 2026 · IPR2025-00270 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 27 are unpatentable as obvious over Rohall and Schiavone, with Gomes added for claims 9 and 27.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 9–10. In its Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 16 (“Patent Owner and its expert adopt the Board’s definition for purposes of this Response.”). Having considered the record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’911 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 9–10.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner and determine that the construction of “relational references” does not require the use of a relational model and, further, includes pointers that point to related messages exchanged among users. The intrinsic evidence leads us to this construction. First, the relevant language of claim 1 recites “a message container containing relational references pointing to a plurality of sent submessages stored externally to the message container in the message database.” Ex. 1001, 15:56–59. A relational model is not recited in that language or anywhere else in the claim. See id. at 15:51–16:14. Therefore, the claim does not expressly require a relational model. Furthermore, the claim language supports Petitioner’s interpretation that “relational references” include pointers that point to related messages because the claim states that the “relational references” perform the task of “pointing to a plurality of sent submessages.” Pet. Reply 7. Accordingly, the language of the claim supports a construction that does not require a relational model and at least suggests relational references include pointers.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“No other claim terms need construction for our decision here and we decline unnecessarily doing so. 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 15
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentableDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Rohall and Schiavone because Schiavone provides reasons to apply its techniques to email systems such as Rohall’s. Schiavone describes a need for “ensuring compliance of e-mail messages with applicable standards and/or laws and/or otherwise determining appropriateness of a message for an intended recipient,” especially because there is “a patchwork of local, federal and international laws.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 6. Schiavone also states that filtering emails, e.g., to remove spam, is beneficial. Id. ¶¶ 1–2. As Schiavone describes problems in email systems, which its rules-based email processing technique addresses, we determine that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Rohall and Schiavone. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 401 (a reference which teaches, suggests, or motivates its combination may “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements”).” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,073,911 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,073,911 - Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Sterling Computers CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 3, 2026 · IPR2025-00430 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 13–15, 18, 19, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Dumais, Rose, and Rose with Bieganski.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 7–8. In its Response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 13–14 (“Patent Owner and its expert adopt the Board’s definition for purposes of this Response”). Having considered the record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’217 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 7–8.” slip op. at 8
- ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedOther
“We have not considered any of the evidence Patent Owner moves to exclude in reaching our findings and conclusions set for in this Decision. As a result, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude this evidence is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 55
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Priority / effective filing date / continuation supportReference is prior artPriority date, deniedDecided for petitioner
“We determine that Patent Owner has not carried its temporary burden of production to support its contention that the inventors were reasonably diligent throughout the critical period. See Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at specifically cite the relevant record evidence combined with an explanation of the significance of the produced material in briefs. See id. at 1372 (explaining that “[t]he burden of production cannot be met without some combination of citing the relevant record evidence with specificity and explaining the significance of the produced material in briefs”). Patent Owner states that it “submitted extensive evidence.” PO Sur-reply 14. But simply submitting dozens of exhibits is not enough. As our reviewing court has admonished, the “burden of production cannot be met simply by throwing mountains of evidence at the Board without explanation or identification of the relevant portions of that evidence.” See Parus Holdings, 70 F.4th at 1371. Instead of citing what specific portions of those exhibits are relevant and why, Patent Owner cites entire exhibits and asserts, without analysis or explanation, that they show diligence. See PO Resp. 49– 50 (citing numerous exhibits without pinpoint citations). Patent Owner’s Sur-reply asserts that Patent Owner’s Response was adequate (PO Sur-reply 17), but an examination of the Response shows that it was not. For example, in its Response, Patent Owner states “numerous documents corroborating [the inventors’] testimony that, during the critical period, they were refining the formulas to implement the BlueSpace relevance model” by citing the entirety of so-called “corroborating documentation” spanning Exhibits 2032 through 2074 as well as the entirety of Justin Marston’s Second Supplemental Declaration (Ex. 2030) and Paul Marston’s Declaration (Ex. 2031). See PO Resp. 49. However, there is not a single pinpoint citation to any particular paragraph, page, or entry for any of those exhibits (a number of which approach 100 pages in length) in Patent Owner’s discussion. See id. Even less helpful, the Response does not inventors actually worked on the claimed invention. See id. That is, the Response does not state exactly what in the “corroborating documentation” actually corroborates the inventors’ testimony or itself shows diligence. If anything, the Response points out that the inventors were engaged in other activities: “Justin Marston had numerous other obligations running the company BlueSpace, and Paul Marston was working a full-time position as a lecturer on statistics.” PO Resp. 49; PO Sur-reply 15–16. We do not fault the Marstons for engaging in other activities, but Patent Owner’s discussion of the Marstons’ other activities and mere conclusory assertions of diligence, without more, do not show that the Marstons were reasonably diligent as to the relevant activities during the critical time period. Simply put, Patent Owner’s Response does not adequately explain exactly how or why the evidence supports its argument that the inventors were reasonably diligent throughout the critical period. We decline the invitation to sift through the hundreds of pages spanning dozens of exhibits in search of evidence and reasons supporting Patent Owner’s assertion of diligence.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“combined Rose and Bieganski. Rose and Bieganski are both concerned with recommending content to a user based on other users’ content preferences. Ex. 1006, code (57); Ex. 1007, code (57). Petitioner, supported by Dr. Fox, adequately shows that Bieganski discloses an improved technique for selecting which other users’ preferences are considered in a recommendation. Pet. 71 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 235–236), 75 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 247–248). We agree that improving Rose’s content ranking system using Bieganski’s content recommendation technique sufficiently motivates the combination. See KSR Int’l, 550 U.S. 417 (noting that where “a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”). Patent Owner’s argument that Bieganski’s approach is not an improvement over Rose because Rose “teach[es] that feedback from all users is valuable” (PO Sur-reply 9–10 (citing Ex. 2029 ¶ 199)) has two faults. First, that argument mischaracterizes Rose. We find no description in Rose which states that feedback from all users is “valuable” such that selecting certain users is not an improvement. Rather, Rose aligns with Bieganski’s selection of relevant users because Rose emphasizes feedback from similar users by adjusting the weight given to feedback from users who are more or less correlated. Ex. 1006, 6:64–7:1, 7:10–34 (“Rjk is the correlation of users i and k, the Vkj is the weight indicating the feedback of user k on document j.”). Second, even if Rose describes an embodiment where feedback from all users is considered, that does not preclude motivating improvement. See PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (noting it is not necessary to show that a combination is “the best option, only that it be a suitable option”).” slip op. at 47
Patent outcomesUS 7,716,217 unpatentable§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - X Corp. v. Sterling Computers CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated Dumais-based and Kircher/Krug grounds; Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s motions to exclude are dismissed as moot.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In its response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 14–15 (“Patent Owner and its expert adopt the Board’s definition for purposes of this Response”). Having considered the record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’217 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached
“1. “computer program modules” The parties dispute whether four “computer program modules comprising” (1) “a monitoring module,” (2) “a first relevance measurement module,” (3) “a second relevance measurement module,” and (4) “a relevance analysis module” (collectively, “module limitations”) invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and should be treated as means-plus-function limitations. See Pet. 8–18; PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3–5; PO Sur-reply 4–7. However, the parties do not argue that the construction of these terms affects the analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Moreover, our analysis does not rely on any particular construction of these terms and, so, we need not resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“2. “one or more measures derived from the group consistent of” Petitioner asserts limitations 1[g] and 1[g][i]–1[g][iv] recite an open Markush group listing alternatively useable members. Pet. 20–21 (citing Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Abbot Lab’ys v. Baxter Pharm. Prod., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that the listing of specified alternatives within a claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping)); See Ex. 1001, 47:47–58. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction. See PO Resp; PO Sur-reply. As these terms are not in controversy, we need not opine on this construction.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededNot reached
“Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s respective constructions overlap in their requirement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. See Pet. 18; PO Resp. 20–21; PO Sur-reply 10. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction “exclude[s] ‘groups’ from the claims” and further limits the scope of to users who share actions (Pet. Reply 8–9), but Patent Owner states that its proposed construction does not so limit the claims (PO Sur-reply 10). As such, there is no disagreement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. As there is no controversy, we need not, and do not, construe the meaning of “cognate.” However, Patent Owner’s requirement that “at least one other of the plurality of users” is specifically cognate to “the user” who was sent the content is plainly recited in the claim language itself. The claim recites a “relevance score of a piece of electronic content sent from a sender to a user” in the preamble and similarly again in limitation 1[g]. See Ex. 1001, 47:25–28 (emphasis added), 45:62–64. The limitation in question directly references the claimed “user” when reciting the cognate relationship: “identify at least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user.” Ex. 1001, 47:43–45 (emphasis added). As such, the claim language plainly supports Patent Owner’s requirement and Petitioner does not contest that requirement. See Pet. Reply 8. least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user” as requiring that the identified other user is cognate specifically to the user whose relevance score is being determined.” slip op. at 12
Patent outcomesUS 7,716,217 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 27, 2026 · IPR2022-01093 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand
Claims 13 and 14 were not shown unpatentable because the evidence did not establish that the received card information defines the memory location for the biometric signature.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed our Original Decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. ASSA Abloy AB, No. 2024-1492, 2025 WL 3134960, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2025), Paper 43. The Federal Circuit also noted that in light of the affirmance of our decision in another proceeding, IPR2022- 00600, challenging the same patent, the “errors the Board made in this appeal only extends to claims 3–18, which were not at issue in the other appeal.” Id. at *3 n 1. Therefore, in this proceeding, only challenged claims 13 and 14 remain. At the request of the parties, we permitted additional briefing addressing the issues on remand from the Federal Circuit. Paper 44. Petitioner filed an opening brief (Paper 51 (“Pet. Remand Br.”)), and Patent Owner filed an opening brief (Paper 52 (“PO Remand Br.”)). Both parties also filed responsive briefs. Paper 54 (“Pet. Responsive Br.”); Paper 55 (“PO Responsive Br.”). This is a Final Written Decision on Remand addressing the patentability of the remaining challenged claims 13 and 14. To prevail, Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73.” slip op. at 3
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“offers nothing to suggest that its card information ‘tells you’ where to store the fingerprint data.” ASSA ABLOY AB, 2025 WL 3134960 at *3. Reversing our determinations as to Hsu, the Court found that the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, “merely confirms the associative link between the card information and the biometric data. Still missing is any non-conclusory testimony that Hsu’s card information determines the memory location of the biometric data.” Id. at 8. Therefore, on remand, a central question is whether Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Tsukamura cures this deficiency. Petitioner has not done so. In the Petition, Petitioner relies on Tsukamura for teaching a specific location for storing fingerprint data. See Pet. 75 (stating that “Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory”). Petitioner argues that “[t]hus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., ‘a memory location is specified by the card information.’” Id. at 75–76 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 215). In support, Petitioner’s declarant, Mr. Lipoff, testifies that “[i]f the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is stored in flash ROM 35 at a defined index number N index in the database. Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp, stored at index number N index, is commensurate with “means for defining, dependent upon the received card information, a memory location in a local memory external to the card” as recited in claim limitation 13[C]. Ex. 1001, 14:3–5 (emphasis added).” slip op. at 22
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. However, considering the Federal Circuit’s decision, we determine such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC” slip op. at 23
Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,620,039 - Assa Abloy AB / Assa Abloy Inc. et al. v. CPC Patent Technologies Pty, LtdNo claims unpatentablePTAB · May 8, 2026 · IPR2022-01094 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Remand
Claims 3–12 and 15–18 were not shown unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish that card information defined the memory location for storing the biometric signature.
RulingsRemand decision- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“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) as “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). That burden never shifts to the patentee. Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” slip op. at 10
- Skill levelOther
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Consistent with our Original Decision, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ’039 Patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer engineering, computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the field of human-machine interfaces and device access security. Additional education or experience might substitute for the above requirements.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“1. Limitation 3(da) The issues on remand revolve essentially around limitation 3(da): Limitation 3(da) – storing the inputted biometric signature in a memory at a memory location defined by the provided card information; Ex. 1001, 12:61–63. Considering limitation 3(da) in our Original Decision, we explained that during an enrollment process the claimed “biometric signature,” e.g., a fingerprint, is not yet stored in the memory, and no memory location or address has been “defined,” as in “set” or “established,” in the memory for storing the fingerprint, until card information is received. Once the card information and fingerprint are received during enrollment, the card information provides data that establishes where, i.e., at what memory location or address, the system will store the fingerprint data. Original Decision 16.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentable
“Tsukamura’s index number N index does not teach or suggest much more than Hsu’s using “an account number or employee number, to access a fingerprint database (44) and retrieve reference fingerprint data previously stored there during an enrollment procedure.” Compare Ex. 1004, code (57), with Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. That is, both references arguably teach defining, i.e., setting or establishing, a certain location in a database for biometric data. For example, as described above, Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is Id. 4:7–11, 50–54. However, neither Petitioner, nor Mr. Lipoff, persuasively explain how or why Tsukamura’s fingerprint template Temp is set or established “at a memory location defined by the provided card information” as recited in claim limitation 3(da). Taking a close look at Petitioner’s testimonial evidence as to claim 3, we first note Mr. Lipoff testifies that Tsukamura’s index number specifies the physical memory location in the memory. Thus, Tsukamura discloses defining, dependent upon the “index number N index,” a memory location for storing a biometric signature (e.g., a fingerprint template), i.e., the memory location is specified by the index number, under the Second Construction. In my opinion, if the Tsukamura implementation were used for Sanford-Hsu database, each user/account number would specify a different entry (index number) in the database. Ex. 1006 ¶ 394. This is consistent with our understanding of Tsukamura, and we can agree that Tsukamura teaches defining—that is, setting or establishing—a location for storing the biometric signature at “index number N index.” See Ex. 1005, 4:7–11. But, concomitant with the Federal Circuit’s point, such an associative link does not sufficiently explain how one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood Tsukamura’s IC card information to define “as in ‘set’ or ‘establish[]’” a memory location, as our claim construction requires. See Section II.C.3.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 8,620,039 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,620,039 - Cholla Energy LLC / Obm, Inc. v. Lancium LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01361 · APJ Amber L Hagy · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–16 are unpatentable under § 103: claims 1, 2, and 9–12 over Kiani and Pelio; claims 4–8 over Kiani, Pelio, and Chapel; claim 3 over Kiani, Pelio, and Belady; and claims 13–16 over Kiani, …
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art as someone that “would have had a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of professional experience relating to green datacenters, including the use of renewable energy in powering datacenters, workload distribution amongst geographically distributed datacenters, and power management techniques for datacenters.” Dec. 9 (citing Pet. 15; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22). Patent Owner has not filed a Patent Owner Response, and therefore Petitioner’s assessment and our initial determination remain unchallenged. We maintain our determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art as stated in our Institution Decision, and we apply it herein. We determine this level of skill comports with the qualifications a person would have needed to understand and implement the teachings of the ʼ261 patent and the prior art of record. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art).” slip op. at 17
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts “for the purposes of this proceeding and the grounds presented herein, no claim term requires express construction.” Pet. 15. As noted, Patent Owner has not submitted a Patent Owner Response, and hence also does not propose any terms for construction. We determine that no claim term requires express interpretation. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (claim terms need to be construed “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 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
Patent outcomesUS 11,283,261 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,283,261 - Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Dec 12, 2025 · IPR2022-00218 · APJ Grace Karaffa Obermann · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 2, 5, and 6 were held unpatentable as obvious; the motion to amend was denied for proposed claims 16–21 and dismissed for claims 22–23.
RulingsRemand decision- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“The level of ordinary skill in the art, as articulated by Patent Owner, more accurately reflects the subject matter of the ’704 Patent and the asserted prior art than does Petitioner’s articulation. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level” as evidence of the ordinary level of skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Petitioner does not explain how “control theory” and “applied mathematics” (Pet. 16) relate to the subject matter of the ’704 Patent or the asserted prior art, and Petitioner’s reference to “laboratory experience” (id.) is too general to be useful in defining the level of skill. Furthermore, whereas Petitioner requires a POSITA to have “x-ray and computing imaging experience” (id.), Patent Owner more particularly specifies “x-ray microtomography experience” (PO Resp. 5), which is the field of art for the ’704 Patent, as well as many of the asserted prior art references. Ex. 1001, code (54) (“High resolution direct-projection type x-ray microtomography system using synchrotron or laboratory-based x-ray source”); Ex. 1007 (discussing X-ray microcomputed tomography); Ex. 1008 (discussing X-ray nanotomography and microtomography); Ex. 1010, code (54) (“Method and apparatus for utilizing an electro-optic detector in a microtomography system”); Ex. 1011 (title: “Three- Dimensional X-ray Microtomography”). For those reasons, we apply Patent Owner’s definition of a POSITA.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for patent owner
“Neither party proposes any express claim constructions. See Pet. 17 (“all claim terms should receive their plain and ordinary meaning”); PO Resp. 5 (applying the same constructions as Petitioner). In accordance with the Federal Circuit’s mandate, however, we adopt and apply herein “[t]he plain meaning of the term ‘between 1 and 10,’” which “includes tiny, and even undetectable, magnification” and, moreover, we take account that Jorgensen anticipates claim 1, including that limitation. Paper 38, 11–12. We determine that no other claim term requires express construction for purposes of resolving any controversy between the parties. Realtime Data LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable
“i. Spot Size as a Result-Effective Variable First, Patent Owner argues that Petitioner fails to “identify any prior art that discloses an x-ray source having the claimed spot size.” PO Resp. 45. We agree with Petitioner, however, that Patent Owner “fails to consider the advantages of a smaller spot size” –– advantages that would have been known to a POSITA, given that they are discussed “in each of these references.” Reply 19. Petitioner further directs us to evidence that Patent Owner’s own witness, Dr. Bentley, “agreed that a POSITA would have been aware of tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes.” Id. (citing Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20). In other words, the evidence supports that spot size would have been a result effective variable and, on this record, that optimizing that variable in view of various “tradeoffs,” recognized by Patent Owner’s own witness, would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Id.; see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art”). Patent Owner does not counter Petitioner’s evidence on that point, but instead, refers us back to a related argument in the Response, pertaining to whether one would have undertaken that modification with a reasonable expectation of success, which we address below in connection with Patent Owner’s third argument. Sur-reply 18 (citing PO Resp. 47–49).” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner
“smaller spot sizes.” PO Resp. 45. We recognize that an obviousness challenge may be overcome “by showing that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention in any material respect.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For a reference to teach away, however, it must state more than a general preference for an alternative invention. Specifically, it must “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In Patent Owner’s view, “Jorgensen teaches away from smaller spot sizes” because smaller spot sizes “require significantly more power to generate the desired flux.” PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner directs us to evidence that, at best, illustrates that this disadvantage would have been among the “tradeoffs between smaller and larger spot sizes” that inform the selection. Ex. 1024, 45:14–47:20 (Dr. Bentley’s cross-examination testimony); see PO Resp. 45–46 (evidence of proposed disadvantage). This evidence does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into the invention claimed. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. At best, we find that it may indicate a preference for a different spot size depending on the desired application.” slip op. at 13
Patent outcomesUS 7,400,704 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,400,704 - PTAB · Sep 23, 2025 · IPR2025-00270 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–13, 15, 18, 20, 21, and 27 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 13 is obvious over Rohall and Schiavone.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the art in May 2004 would have had a working knowledge of the telecommunications and networking art that is pertinent to the [’911 patent]. A POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, computer engineering, or an equivalent, and two years of relevant experience involving computer science fundamentals, including pointers, data structures, object-oriented programming, database principles, internet-based communication technologies and electronic mail systems that is pertinent to the [’911 patent]. Lack of professional experience can be remedied by additional education, and vice versa Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 22). Patent Owner asserts a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art — computer science — would have at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or computer science/engineering, or a related field, with at least two years of experience in the design or implementation of content management and analysis systems or a master[’s] degree in electrical or computer science/engineering, or a related field, with at least one year of experience in the design or implementation of content management and analysis systems. A higher level of education or skill can make up for less experience, and vice versa. Prelim. Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2002 ¶ 14). For purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. Petitioner’s proposed definition generally teachings of the ’911 patent and the asserted prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). This definition is also supported by the testimony of Dr. Black.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“relational references” require using a relational model (or that they are a relational model) and, for purposes of this decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proffered construction. The relevant portion of claim 1 recites “a message container containing relational references pointing to a plurality of sent submessages stored externally to the message container in the message database.” Ex. 1001, 15:56–59. That express language does not recite a relational model, let alone that “relational references” connote required use of a relational model. Instead, the language supports Petitioner’s interpretation that “relational references” are pointers that point to related messages because the claim states that the “relational references” perform the task of “pointing to a plurality of sent submessages.” Although Patent Owner asserts that “pointers pointing” would be redundant (Prelim. Sur-reply 3), we disagree. In addition to being different parts of speech, i.e., a pointer is a noun and pointing is a verb defining what the noun is doing, the claim does not merely recite “relational references pointing.” Rather, Petitioner’s proposed construction outlines what the “relational references” include, i.e., “pointers,” and claim 1 further limits what the “relational references” are “pointing to,” i.e., “to a plurality of sent submessages.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Further, the Specification supports adopting Petitioner’s construction over Patent Owner’s. The Specification does not state that “relational references” require the use of, or are, a relational model, as Patent Owner argues. Rather, any discussion of “relational references” in the Specification describes them as message components that refer to content or other data, e.g., a pointer. Ex. 1001, 3:6–16 (“a message is a container having relational references to content and/or audit data”); see id. at 1:67–2:2, 4:61–64, slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We agree with Petitioner that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Rohall and Schiavone because Schiavone provides reasons to apply its techniques to email systems such as Rohall’s. Schiavone describes a need for “ensuring compliance of e-mail messages with applicable standards and/or laws and/or otherwise determining appropriateness of a message for an intended recipient,” especially because there is “a patchwork of local, federal and international laws.” Ex. 1006 ¶ 6. Schiavone also states that filtering emails, e.g., to remove spam, is beneficial. Id. ¶¶ 1–2. As Schiavone describes problems in email systems, adequately shows that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Rohall and Schiavone. See KSR, 550 U.S. 401 (a reference which teaches, suggests, or motivates its combination may “identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements”).” slip op. at 17
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 8,073,911 - PTAB · Aug 13, 2025 · IPR2025-00430 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–3, 5–9, 13–15, 18, 19, and 22 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Rose.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“j) Conclusion as to Claim 1 For the reasons discussed above, and based on Petitioner’s contentions and evidence, summarized above, we are persuaded, on this record, that Petitioner shows a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that claim 1 would have been obvious over Rose. 3. Institution of Inter Partes Review Because we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Rose, we institute an inter partes review of all claims and all challenges raised in the Petition. See SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 365 (2018) (stating 35 U.S.C. § 314 “simply requires [the Director] to decide whether the petitioner is likely to succeed on ‘at least 1’ claim. Once that single claim threshold is satisfied, it doesn’t matter whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on any additional claims; the Director need not even consider any other claim before instituting review”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a).” slip op. at 26
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s description is more restrictive than that of Petitioner because it requires the POSITA to have more experience or education in the relevant field. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Petitioner’s proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’271 Patent and the asserted prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). Although we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and our conclusions would be the same under either definition.” slip op. at 8
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“Furthermore, the computer program module limitations are undisputedly coupled with respectively recited functions. See Pet. 11–16 (identifying corresponding functions for each recited module). Dr. Kahn testifies that the POSITA would understand the recited functions can be performed by existing or off-the-shelf systems and that the functions recited explain how to engineer, build, or implement the modules using known and available techniques. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 25–35. For institution purposes, we credit Dr. Khan’s testimony and determine that a POSITA would have understood the module limitations connote structure. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[B]ecause the recited functions can be performed by conventional off-the-shelf software, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the alleged means-plus-function ‘code’ limitations in the asserted claims to connote structure.”) (citing Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); WSOU Invs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1063, 2023 WL 6889033, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) (“‘[C]omputer program code,’ when combined with a description of what the code is intended to accomplish, convey definite structure to the ordinarily skilled artisan.”). Accordingly, for institution purposes, we conclude that the computer program module limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 are not written in means-plus-function format because they would have connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Id. 48:19–51. That language suggests that the module limitations are software instructions or code because the modules are defined as “computer program modules” or “computer program instructions.” Id. at 47:32, 48:20– 21. Moreover, the claims recite that the modules are stored in a computerreadable storage medium and are instructions to be executed by a processor, further suggesting the modules are software instructions or code. Id. at 47:30–32, 48:16–21. The testimony of Dr. Kahn, which we credit for institution purposes, supports that understanding; Dr. Kahn states a POSITA would understand that “‘computer program modules’ stored on a ‘computerreadable storage medium’ refers to software instructions or code.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Furthermore, the computer program module limitations are undisputedly coupled with respectively recited functions. See Pet. 11–16 (identifying corresponding functions for each recited module). Dr. Kahn testifies that the POSITA would understand the recited functions can be performed by existing or off-the-shelf systems and that the functions recited explain how to engineer, build, or implement the modules using known and available techniques. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 25–35. For institution purposes, we credit Dr. Khan’s testimony and determine that a POSITA would have understood the module limitations connote structure. See Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“[B]ecause the recited functions can be performed by conventional off-the-shelf software, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the alleged means-plus-function ‘code’ limitations in the asserted claims to connote structure.”) (citing Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003, 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); WSOU Invs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1063, 2023 WL 6889033, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2023) (“‘[C]omputer program code,’ when combined with a description of what the code is intended to accomplish, convey definite structure to the ordinarily skilled artisan.”). Accordingly, for institution purposes, we conclude that the computer program module limitations recited in claims 1 and 6 are not written in means-plus-function format because they would have connoted sufficiently definite structure to persons of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217 - PTAB · Jun 10, 2025 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–22 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Kircher and Krug.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Having reviewed the parties’ papers and the evidence of record, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood it would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the Petition. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner’s description is more restrictive than that of Petitioner because it requires the POSITA to have more experience or education in the relevant field. Based on the current record and for the purposes of this 6 The current record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. proposed definition generally comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’271 Patent and the asserted prior art. Cf. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (noting that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill in the art). However, the open-ended language “at least” expands the range of education and experience indefinitely with no upper bound. Therefore, we do not adopt this aspect of Petitioner’s formulation. Although we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art, our determination regarding Petitioner’s challenge does not turn on the differences between Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s definitions, and our conclusions would be the same under either definition. To the extent the level of ordinary skill in the art is in dispute or makes a material difference in the obviousness analysis, the parties should brief their respective positions in this regard during trial.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) does not applyDecided for patent owner
“Although the specification broadly defines “module,” the language of the claims better supports Patent Owner’s argument that the computer program module limitations connote structure in the form of software instructions or code. Prelim. Resp. 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 22–24; Ex. 2003 ¶¶ 15–28). Specifically, claim 1 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing computer program modules configured to execute on the computer processor, the computer program modules comprising. . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Ex. 1001, 47:30–32. And, claim 6 recites the computer-program product having a computer-readable storage medium having computer program instructions encoded thereon comprising . . . a monitoring module . . . a first relevance measurement module . . . a second relevance measurement module . . . and a relevance analysis module. Id. 48:19–51. That language suggests that the module limitations are software instructions or code because the modules are defined as “computer program modules” or “computer program instructions.” Id. at 47:32, 48:20– readable storage medium and are instructions to be executed by a processor, further suggesting the modules are software instructions or code. Id. at 47:30–32, 48:16–21. The testimony of Dr. Kahn, which we credit for institution purposes, supports that understanding; Dr. Kahn states a POSITA would understand that “‘computer program modules’ stored on a ‘computerreadable storage medium’ refers to software instructions or code.” Ex. 2001 ¶ 24. Furthermore, the computer program module limitations are” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“That is, Petitioner asserts that the claim requires only one of “a local importance,” “a global importance,” “a content relevance,” or “one or more actions on the piece of electronic content.” Id. We adopt Petitioner’s construction, which Patent Owner does not dispute at this stage in the proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. The claimed determination is “based at least in part on one or more measures derived from the group” members listed. As such, the claim language is clear that only one member of the group, i.e., one of limitations 1[g][i]–1[g][iv], is required to meet the claim. Independent claims 6 and 7 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and for purposes of institution, we adopt Petitioner’s claim construction for those similar limitations. See Ex. 1001, 48:35–46, 49:1–11.” slip op. at 14
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites KSRPatents in suitUS 7,716,217
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.