- PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00531 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
Instituted IPR of claims 1–15 on all grounds; found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 and 8–15 are obvious over Warren.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenInstituted
“limitations set forth in claim 1. Pet. 16–23 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 7–14, 58–63, 93, 230–324, 390–446, Figs. 18, 22A, 23A; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 72–92). Patent Owner counters that “Warren does not teach one or more sensors configured to detect a current contact force.” Prelim. Resp. 25. The “current contact force” is detected by “one or more sensors” as recited in limitation 1b and limitation 1c requires “detecting the current contact force based on a sensor signal from the one or more sensors.” Ex. 1001, 12:40–45. Patent Owner does not currently contest Petitioner’s showing relating to Warren’s teaching of the other limitations recited in the method of claim 1. See Prelim. Resp. 25–27.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner cites portions of Warren and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony to support these reasons. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 93, 226–252, 283–318, 331, 332; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 65–71). Patent Owner has yet to submit expert testimony, so Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relating to the motivations of an ordinarily skilled artisan is largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 9
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“available because Petitioner’s showing impermissibly incorporates argument by reference. Id. at 29–30. Although Petitioner’s showing is somewhat brief, see Pet. 2, we have no concerns about the sufficiency of that showing, which is based on direct testimony from a witness with undeniable personal knowledge of the history of the RepRap online forum in which RepRap20208 appears, Adrian Bowyer. Nor do we find it necessary to “piece together” arguments based on Mr. Bowyer’s testimony, which we find to be clear, concise, and probative on the nature of the RepRap forum and who frequented that forum during the relevant time period. Patent Owner is entitled to test the probative value of Mr. Bowyer’s testimony at trial if it desires.” slip op. at 13
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,168,698 - PTAB · Oct 6, 2025 · IPR2025-00532 · APJ Mitchell G Weatherly · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims, 1–16, and all asserted grounds; it found a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–6 and 9–16 are obvious over Warren.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 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). Based on our review of the record,1 we conclude that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundInstituted
“Petitioner identifies four motives for adding a transducer 3740 and vibration sensor 3730 used in connection with Warren’s vibro-capillary dispenser 3700 to Warren’s through-nozzle dispenser 100. Pet. 11–14. Petitioner cites portions of Warren and Dr. Wolfe’s testimony to support these reasons. Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 93, 226–252, 283–318, 331, 332; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–72). Patent Owner has yet to submit expert testimony, so Dr. Wolfe’s testimony relating to the motivations of an ordinarily skilled artisan is largely unrebutted.” slip op. at 7
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Prior-art status of a reference › Printed publication / public accessibilityPrinted publication establishedInstituted
“First, that Petitioner fails to establish that RepRap20208 was publicly available because Petitioner’s showing impermissibly incorporates argument by reference. Id. at 27–28. Although Petitioner’s showing is somewhat brief, see Pet. 2, we have no concerns about the sufficiency of that showing, which is based on direct testimony from a witness with undeniable personal knowledge of the history of the RepRap online forum in which RepRap20208 appears, Adrian Bowyer. Nor do we find it necessary to “piece together” arguments based on Mr. Bowyer’s testimony, which we find to be clear, concise, and probative on the nature of the RepRap forum and who frequented that forum during the relevant time period. Patent Owner is entitled to test the probative value of Mr. Bowyer’s testimony at trial if it desires.” slip op. at 12
- Skill levelOther
§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,556,381 - PTAB · Sep 19, 2025 · PGR2025-00025 · APJ Kimberly Mcgraw · PGR · Institution
The Board instituted PGR on claims 1–19 and all asserted grounds, finding it more likely than not that claim 1 is anticipated by the Gatorade Label.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“if “the information presented in the petition . . . demonstrate[s] that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” Post-grant review is available for patents that issue from applications that at one point contained at least one claim with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), §§ 3(n)(1), 6(f)(2)(A). After considering the briefing and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we determine that Petitioner has shown that the ’422 Patent is eligible for post-grant review and has shown it is more likely than not that at least one challenged claim of the ’422 Patent is unpatentable under § 324(a). Accordingly, we institute a post-grant review of the challenged claims of the ’422 Patent.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would possess at least (1) a Bachelor’s degree in chemistry or a related field, with (2) five years of experience in material identification and characterization using multiple analytical methods and field sampling, or equivalent research or professional experience.” Pet. 12 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ 24). Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s definition for one of ordinary skill in the art nor provide a proposed definition of its own. See generally Prelim. Resp. For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s undisputed proposal regarding the level of one of ordinary skill in the art.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Prosecution history disclaimer / disavowalDisclaimer foundDecided for patent owner
“336. The applicant explained that not all combinations of shrink films and light blocking materials are recyclable. Id. at 335. The applicant explained that films can be compatible with PET recycling in two ways, (1) the film can float in water and be separated from PET that sinks in water or (2) the PET films crystallize and “can be recovered with the PET stream.” Id. at 336 (citing “A Resource Document by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR)”) (found at Ex. 1002, 323–332) (emphasis omitted). The applicant explained that “removing the label before or during the recycling process is not evidence of the recyclability of the label” and that “[r]emoving the label during the recycling process is not equivalent to actually recycling the label.” Id. at 335. As such, a POSITA reading the prosecution history would understand that a label is not recyclable with a PET container, as recited by the independent claims, by removing the label from the PET recycle stream before or during the recycling process.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther
“To determine how a person skill in the art would determine if a shrink label is “recyclable” as recited in the independent claims, we look to how the Specification of the ’422 Patent describes or defines recyclable shrink labels. For example, the ’422 Patent states that PET shrink films are generally considered recyclable if no inks are retained on the film after a caustic wash cycle typically used in PET reclaiming processes. Ex. 1001, 6:61–65. The ’422 Patent further states that labels are fully recyclable if the polymers used are clear, preferably clear PET, and the labels include inks that can be washed off in a “typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash).” Id. at 11:44– 49; see also id. at 11:49–54 (describing embodiments in which the labels are free or substantially free of inks that cannot be washed off in a caustic wash or where the labels are free or substantially free of color plastics that cannot be recycled). The ’422 Patent further discusses “industry standards” for determining whether various embodiments of shrink labels are recyclable. See, e.g., id. at 11:29–53. For example, the Specification states that the “Association for Plastic Recyclers (APR) Critical Guidance Protocol for Clear PET Articles with Labels and Closures (PET-CG-02)” (Ex. 1005) can certify that a film is fully recyclable with a container or bottle. Id. at 11:34– 38. Additionally, the Specification states that labels “are recyclable according to the Evaluation of the Near Infrared (NIR) Sorting Potential of a Whole Plastic Article (SORT-B-01)” (Ex. 1010) and/or the “Evaluation of Sorting Potential for Plastic Articles Utilizing Metal, Metalized, or Metallic Printed Components (SORT-B-03)” (Ex. 1011). Ex. 1001, 11:39–44. The ’422 Patent further states that embodiments of the labels “are fully recyclable. For example, the labels may include inks that can be washed off in a typical PET recycling wash (caustic wash) and the polymers” are preferably clear PET. Id. at 11:44–48. The ’422 Patent thus provides various descriptions or standards to determine the recyclability of shrink labels. For the purposes of addressing the anticipation and obviousness grounds, we determine that any of these standards can be used to determine if a shrink label is “recyclable.” We note that our construction is preliminary and is based on the present record. We invite the parties to further the address the construction of “wherein the recyclable shrink label is recyclable with a PET container” during trial.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 11,961,422 - Champion Laboratories, Inc. / First Brands Group, LLC v. Hengst SENo claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 8, 2025 · IPR2024-00603 · APJ Sheldon M Mcgee · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8–11, 15–17, 19, 23–25, and 28–30 were not shown unpatentable over Yokoyama, Yokoyama and Cline, or Honermann and Cline.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“On this record, we determine that the level of ordinary skill is reflected in the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (specific findings on the ordinary skill level are not required “where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and a need for testimony is not shown” (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163–64 (Fed. Cir. 1985))). Because the level of ordinary skill in the art is not in dispute, and because the parties’ definition is consistent with the disclosures in the ʼ203 patent, the prior art, and the declaration testimony of Mr. Nranian and Dr. Basirat, we view the prior art and arguments through this lens when determining whether the claims are unpatentable as obvious over the prior art.5 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17 (identifying “the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art” as an underlying factual inquiry to be resolved in deciding obviousness, which is a question of law).” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“Although the parties spend significant portions of their briefing discussing the term “eccentric” and how it applies to certain figures from the ʼ203 patent and the relied-upon prior art, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe the term “eccentric” beyond the parties’ agreed-upon definition. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that only claim terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Rather, we adopt Patent Owner’s proffered definition because it is consistent with the intrinsic record and because it is not in dispute. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts that the plain meaning of the term “eccentric” is defined as “located elsewhere than at the geometric center; also: having the axis or support so located.” PO Resp. 18–19 (citing the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition of the term “eccentric” for support). Petitioner agrees with this definition. Pet. 35 (asserting that certain prior art elements are eccentric “because they are not located at the center of the filter insert or housing”); Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”); see also Ex. 2017 ¶ 33 (Dr. Basirat testifying that “[a] POSITA would understand that ‘eccentric’ in the context of [the] ʼ203 patent, means that central axis is located elsewhere than at the geometric center [and] not placed centrally or not having its axis or other part placed centrally”). The parties’ definition of “eccentric” is also consistent with the usage of the term in the ʼ203 patent. Ex. 1001, 10:23–31; Fig. 17.” slip op. at 14
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert discountedDecided for patent owner
“(opining that “Patent Owner’s construction of ‘having an axis no located in a geometric center’ is too narrow”). Mr. Nranian’s Declaration testimony in this respect is not persuasive for several reasons. First, it is internally inconsistent. Compare Ex. 1016 ¶ 3 (criticizing the “axis” language in Patent Owner’s definition), with id. ¶¶ 9, 11 (relying on that very language to support an argument). Also, Mr. Nranian’s proposed definition of “eccentric” to merely mean “not located at the center” begs the question of what, precisely, is “the center”? Mr. Nranian does not persuasively explain how far a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand she could travel from the exact center point of an object and still be in “the center” of that object. See Tr. 10:13–19 (Judge McGee asking whether the center is “a miniscule point in the middle of [the] disc”); see also id. at 10:25–12:26 (Judge Weatherly highlighting the significant ambiguity in referring to something as in “the center”). Also, Mr. Nranian’s opinion is inconsistent with how the ʼ203 patent compares something that is “central,” i.e., “at the center,” and something that is “eccentrically” located. Ex. 1001, 7:13–14 (describing pipe nozzle 15 as “central”); id. at 8:53–56 (describing a “through hole” as “located in the center of the front panel 22” depicted in Figures 7 and 8); id. at 10:23–31 (describing return 12 as “in the center” and outlet 13 as “eccentrically thereto” in Figure 17). Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated Figure 7 is reproduced below: Patent Owner’s colorized and annotated version of Figure 7 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates “central pipe nozzle 15” in yellow passing through the “through hole” located in “the center” of front panel 22. PO Resp. 20. Significantly, pipe nozzle 15 and the through hole in panel 22 are both described as “central” and in “the center” but must have different diameters; otherwise, “central pipe nozzle 15” would not be capable of traveling through “through hole 22.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 7. Thus, the ʼ203 patent intrinsically bases whether an element is “central” or “in the center” on whether its axis is located at the geometric center. This is also illustrated in Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent, reproduced below: Figure 17 of the ʼ203 patent illustrates filter housing 10 with return 12 “in the center . . . and, eccentrically thereto, the outlet 13 with the seat 14 for the blocking element 24.” Ex. 1001, 10:23–30. Finally, Mr. Nranian’s narrow interpretation of “eccentric”––which excludes the “having the axis or support so located” in the geometric center language––is at odds with the arguments it was proffered to support. Cf. Pet. Reply 9 (arguing that certain elements are eccentric because they “do not have an axis located at the geometric center”); id. at 10 (arguing the eccentricity of an element that does “not have an axis in the center” which has “an off-center axis”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 9,023,203 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,023,203 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations 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 skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507 - AT&T Mobility LLC / AT&T Services Inc. et al. v. Daingean Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 14, 2025 · IPR2024-00402 · APJ Mary C Hoffman · IPR · Final written decision
The Board granted Patent Owner’s revised non-contingent motion to amend, canceling claims 1–4 and substituting claims 7 and 8, which Petitioner did not prove unpatentable.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“whether the motion to amend meets the statutory and regulatory requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 316(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.121.” See Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2019) (precedential). A “patent owner bears the burden of persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the motion to amend complies” with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(d)(1). Specifically, a patent owner must demonstrate the following: (1) the amendment proposes a reasonable number of substitute claims; (2) the amendment responds to a ground of unpatentability involved in the trial; (3) the amendment does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent; and (4) the amendment does not introduce new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)–(b). For the reasons explained below, Patent Owner satisfies its burden of persuasion to show that the amendments comply with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“Both parties rely on expert testimony for their respective positions relating to the number of years of experience needed to attain ordinary skill, but neither expert cites supporting evidence for their testimony. See Ex. 1002 ¶ 33; Ex. 2002 ¶ 15. Our decision is the same regardless of whether the length of experience is two years or three. We find Patent Owner’s proposed “wireless communications” is more consistent with the ’958 patent than Petitioner’s proposed “telecommunication,” which encompasses a variety of technologies including, e.g., landline and wireless telephones, cable, and satellite. See Ex. 1001, 1:11–62 (describing the invention in terms of wireless communications). Accordingly, we adopt a modified version of Petitioner’s proffered level of ordinary skill in the art, substituting “wireless communications” for “telecommunication.” Neither party, moreover, indicates the overall result would change based on a different definition.” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the recited second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. The plain meaning of “first type” and “second type” indicates that the first type and second type are different in kind. RMTA 22 (App. A). Our interpretation is consistent with the Specification, which explains that second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. As Patent Owner points out, the ’958 patent discloses “first type of system information (1TYP SIB) is . . . essential . . . for initial system access” and “second type of system information (2TYP SIB) is nonessential system information . . . defined as all other types of information, and thus excludes the [] information required for initial access.” Id. at 11–12 (citing Ex. 1001, 8:34– 46); see also Ex. 1001, Abstract (interchangeably using the terms second type and non-essential). Despite Petitioner’s argument that this disclosure is non-limiting and directed to a disclaimed example embodiment (Opp. 8–9), Petitioner could not identify any embodiment, among the approximately forty disclosed embodiments, describing something other than the first type SIB being essential information and the second type SIB being non-essential information. Tr. 22:18–26. Even the Petition acknowledges that “the ’958 Patent further classifies a second type of system information, the ‘non-essential’ SI, which is defined as all other types of information excluding that first type of information required for initial access.” Pet. 5. Furthermore, the prior art of record suggests that a person of ordinary skill would have understood second type SIBs exclude first type SIBs. See Ex. 1008 ¶ 48 (describing two categories of system information, “essential SI” and “Other SI”). Patent Owner’s expert also understood the recited first and second type SIBs as being mutually exclusive. See Ex. 1011, 49:10–13. For the above reasons, we do not agree with Petitioner that the recited second type SIB lacks any requirements, nor do we interpret claims 7 and 8 such that the first type SIB could be a second type SIB.” slip op. at 19
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“(d) Limitation 7h: Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s arguments with respect to limitation 7h are insufficient because they fail to address the limitation as written and improperly incorporate previous arguments by reference. For example, Petitioner did not map the recited “group identifier” when opposing Patent Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend. See Opp. 16–17. In its Sur-reply, Petitioner contends that limitation 7h’s requirement of transmitting the group identifier was previously “set out in Patent Owner’s prior papers,” but does not refer to any specific papers or exhibits. Pet. Surreply 11–12. We decline to search for and piece together Petitioner’s arguments and evidence to develop a persuasive theory of unpatentability. See 37 C.F.R. section 42.6(a)(3). Petitioner similarly failed to address adequately where Lee discloses or suggests the recited “compressed format” and “plural parameters.” See Opp. 16–17. Aside from the above concerns, we also do not see sufficient explanation with respect to limitation 7h’s requirement that the transmitting by broadcast be based on a comparison of the value tag. Petitioner argues that, because Patent Owner does not dispute limitation 7g, “it would have been obvious to a POSITA to use the same value tag[] to determine the system information broadcast in Lee’s compressed format embodiment.” Pet. Sur-reply 12. This conclusory statement is not supported by any citations to evidence and was improperly introduced in the Sur-reply. Moreover, whether it was obvious to determine what system information is broadcast is not commensurate with the claim scope because limitation 7h requires that the broadcasting (not the broadcast content) be based on a comparison of the value tag. See supra III.B.4 and IV.B. Further, we are not persuaded that Lee’s transmitting by broadcast is” slip op. at 26
Patent outcomesUS 10,841,958 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · Graham · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,841,958 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Komata; the Board did not reach the Tsuji or Rosenberg grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. . . . Also, a person could have qualified as a [POSITA] with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 17). Although these level of skill definitions are not the same, the differences are minor, and Patent Owner does not argue that its level of skill definition is dispositive. To the contrary, Patent Owner asserts that “[i]n any event, the challenged claims of the ’260 Patent are patentable under either . . . definition.” Id. at 18. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill but would have reached the same result had we applied Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As we explained in our Institution Decision, we disagreed then, and still disagree, “that the second pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected (or that the third pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected) simply because the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (and the third pressure is greater than the second pressure).” Dec. 27. As we explained there, “[t]he claimed relative magnitudes of the first, second, and third pressures do not define any temporal relationships regarding the detection of the pressures.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 recites quantitative relationships for the pressures, not temporal relationships. Reply 4. For example, claim 1 requires “the second pressure greater than the first pressure” but says nothing about when the second pressure must be greater than the first pressure. A key misconception undergirding Patent Owner’s argument is its statement that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” PO Resp. 27 (emphasis added). The claim does not require detecting that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Limitation [1c] simply says, “detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure.” In other words, all the detection that this limitation requires is detecting a second pressure. The claim then observes that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure but does not require detecting this. Limitation [1e] similarly detects pressure but not the comparison: “detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure.” Thus, it does not follow that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” See id. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner’s analysis of the claim language is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Our decision here does not depend on the meaning of this term. Patent Owner only argues the phrase “tactile sensation” for Petitioner’s challenge over Rosenberg, which we do not reach because Petitioner’s challenge over Komata is dispositive. See PO Resp. 63–66. Accordingly, we do not construe this term.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner disputes that Komata discloses the order of all the steps of claim 1, based on its construction requiring the steps to be performed in order. PO Resp. 50–54; Reply 17 (observing that Patent Owner “does not dispute that Ground 1 demonstrates how Komata anticipates or renders obvious claims 1–7 if [Patent Owner’s] ordered-steps argument is rejected”); Sur-reply 12–14 (not disputing the Reply’s observation). As Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction we have not adopted, Patent Owner fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing.7 To the extent, as we note above, that the claims may require a partial ordering (i.e., limitation [1a] preceding limitation [1b] and limitation [1c] preceding limitation [1d], see supra Section I.A.1.a), Petitioner has persuasively shown that Komata discloses such ordering. a. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata. 3. Dependent Claims 2–7 Petitioner also contends that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over Komata. Pet. 28–35. Patent Owner does not dispute these dependent claims. Petitioner provides detailed explanations indicating where Komata teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2–7, supported by Mr. Ward’s testimony. Id. We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–7 are anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,336,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,336,260 - Inductev, Inc. v. Witricity CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · May 20, 2025 · IPR2024-00105 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–13 and 16 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103(a) over the stated Fells-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had . . . a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, microelectronics, or equivalent, and . . . two to three years of industry or research experience,” and “a higher level of education or skill might make up for less experience, and vice-versa.” Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 39–44). Patent Owner “does not disagree with Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill in the art,” but “does not believe that resolution of the Petition depends on the precise definition of the level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 12. Petitioner’s proposed articulation is supported by testimonial evidence and appears consistent with the types of problems and solutions in the ’184 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:15–2:53. As it is uncontested, we adopt it for this decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that the terms of the contested claims should be given their ordinary and customary meaning, but neither party argues that we should construe any claim terms explicitly. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 62– 63); PO Resp. 12. We agree with the parties that, for this decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. 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))). However, the meaning of certain terms are contested, including most notably “magnetic field sensor,” and we discuss those terms below in the context of the prior art.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notNot reached
“Petitioner argues that, to the extent the preamble is limiting, Fells discloses the recited wireless energy transfer system, and that the system includes facilities to detect FOD. Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 66–71, 96–101). Patent Owner does not specifically contest Petitioner’s arguments. See PO Resp. We agree with Petitioner’s argument that Fells discloses the preamble; thus, we need not decide whether the preamble is limiting. See Ex. 1005 ¶ 191, Fig. 2.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner’s argument that the ordinary and customary meaning of “magnetic field sensor” refers to a device that measures only external magnetic fields. There is nothing in the claim language to suggest such a limitation: the plain language simply refers to a “magnetic field sensor,” without regard to how the sensor works or where it senses magnetic fields from. Ex. 1001, 12:16. In fact, the claim does not explicitly require sensing anything at all using the magnetic field sensor, merely reciting a “foreign object debris detection system” comprising the sensor and that the “foreign object debris detection system is configured to verify” the presence of FOD. The very general nature of how the magnetic field sensor is recited, without any explicit recitation of how its output may be used, undermines Patent Owner’s overly restrictive interpretation. Although the ’184 patent specification includes examples of measuring external magnetic fields to detect FOD, Patent Owner has not pointed to anything in the specification indicating an intent to restrict the term “magnetic field sensor” to only those sensors that measure external magnetic fields. Nor is there intrinsic evidence that an “eddy-current sensor” would not also be a magnetic field sensor, given that it senses magnetic fields. Indeed, as Petitioner persuasively argues, an eddy-current sensor still measures external magnetic fields—albeit magnetic fields generated within FOD through interaction with a powered sensor. Pet. 6–7; Ex. 1037 ¶¶ 14– 16, 25–29.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 10,027,184 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,027,184
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.