• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00155 · APJ Lisa L Tsang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, and 28 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of prior art.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 17

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’811 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner relies solely on the testimony of Dr. Cooklev to support its proffered claim construction. PO Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2003 ¶ 34). Dr. Cooklev testifies, “[b]ased on my review of the patent and intrinsic record, [“device-specific target location”] has a plain and ordinary meaning and is used by the claims with that meaning, which requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” Ex. 2003 ¶ 34. Other than further opining that “I see no lexicography or disclaimer in the intrinsic record indicating that ‘device-specific target [location]’ refers to a location that is generally applicable to numerous devices, or that the term otherwise has a meaning broader than its plain and ordinary meaning,” Dr. Cooklev provides no support for why the claimed “device-specific target location” “requires a target location that is specific to a particular device.” See id. We agree that the language in the Specification of the ’811 patent does not indicate that the patentee intended to either act as its own lexicographer, or disavow the full scope of the claim term. See Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning” (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002))); Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (guiding that disavowal or disclaimer of claim scope “must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’ to one of ordinary skill in the art” (citing Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). However, Dr. Cooklev’s opinion that “device-specific target location” means “a target location that is specific to a particular device” is not supported adequately. In particular, “[t]he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313) (emphasis added). Importantly, Dr. Cooklev does not cite to any portions of the intrinsic evidence to support his claim construction. See Ex. 2003 ¶ 34; see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court”). Given the conclusory nature of Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, and because the intrinsic evidence is sufficiently clear, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proffered construction of “device-specific target location.”” slip op. at 16

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

    “c) Analysis Patent Owner’s Response does not advance arguments directed to claims 1 and 15. See generally PO Resp. Accordingly, Patent Owner has forfeited any argument regarding Petitioner’s contentions for these claims. See In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that a patent owner forfeits an issue presented in its preliminary response if it fails to renew the issue in its response after trial is instituted). We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 15, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 15 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 10,341,811 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,341,811
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00154 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–7, 9–10, 12–13, 15–16, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated combinations of Spain-I, Hunzinger, Nanda, and, for certain claims, additional references.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 4 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the 9 The record does not include allegations or evidence of objective indicia of nonobviousness. technology and descriptions in the ’698 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “prosecution history of the ’698 patent for understanding the phrase “at least one number based on,” recited in claim 1. Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1004, 166). Petitioner proposes that the plain meaning of this phrase was expressly described during prosecution of the application that became the ’698 patent, where the Applicant argued that [a]s the specification explains, the “number based on []” is intended to refer to the output of any “formula,” including but not limited to a difference formula, that serves as a comparison “metric” (including “logical comparisons, arithmetically threshold (rounded) logical comparisons, arithmetic, probabilistic, fuzzy logic, neural network enabled, [or] heuristic” [¶00561], or “determinations that are based on derivatives, mathematical normalizations, correlation functions, functions” [¶0139]). Ex. 1004, 166. Patent Owner does not dispute this interpretation. See generally, PO Resp. 2. For purposes of this Decision, and to the extent necessary for institution, we apply Petitioner’s proposed plain meaning for this phrase as it is reasonably based on the prosecution history of the ’698 patent. Apart from this, where neither party proposes any particular construction or indicates disagreement as to the meaning of any claim language, we need not explicitly construe any claim terms at this stage of the proceeding. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, apart from the “at least one number based on” phrase, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for petitioner

    “remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 185 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 187. For claim 6, as discussed above, Petitioner argues that Spain-I teaches remotely storing the fingerprint database, as does Nanda. Pet. 47–49. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively in support that “Spain-I describes configurations where the fingerprint database may be stored remotely from the MU,” and “Nanda also discloses similar features where the mobile device creates a fingerprint and transmits it for storage in a remote database for subsequent analysis.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 194 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 3, 4:28–58; Ex. 1006, 12:14–31; Ex. 1009, 5:22–42; Ex. 1010, 5:20–41; Ex. 1011, Fig. 3, 6:9–14, 6:15–30). As discussed above, claims 1, 2, from which claim 4 depends, and claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, are not contested by Patent Owner. Dr. Almeroth’s testimony as to the prior art teachings and disclosure with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 is credible, supported by the record, and essentially unrebutted in this proceeding. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 93–182, 191–201. Accordingly, based on the complete record, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown a preponderance of evidence that claims 4 and 6 would have been obvious over Spain-I in view of Hunzinger and Nanda.” slip op. at 28

  Patent outcomesUS 8,594,698 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,594,698
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Broadphone LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 5, 2025 · IPR2024-00153 · APJ Scott A Daniels · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–10, 17–20, and 24–26 are unpatentable as obvious over the asserted combinations; the Board did not reach the additional Damarla and Houri grounds.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “would have had at least a BS degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or similar discipline, and two or more years of experience with location determining-based systems and/or processes, such as for example systems/processes for determining mobile device location(s). . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32). Patent Owner does not dispute the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 4. Accordingly, we adopt Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill in the art, which is consistent with our review and understanding of the technology and descriptions in the ’583 patent and prior art of record, and we apply it in our obviousness evaluations below. Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

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

    “In the Petition, Petitioner submits that “no special constructions are necessary” beyond the plain meaning of the claims. Pet. 4. Patent Owner states in its Patent Owner Response that it “agrees that no formal claim construction is necessary.” PO Resp. 5. Construction is needed only for those terms “that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.” See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017 (quoting Vivid Techs., 200 F.3d at 803). After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no claim terms require express construction for this decision.” slip op. at 10

  • BurdenFwd all claims unpatentableUnpatentable

    “Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim 1, which Patent Owner does not contest, and find them persuasive. Pet. 5–41. We adopt Petitioner’s contentions as our own. Based on Petitioner’s arguments and accompanying evidence, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been unpatentable over Spain-I, Hunzinger, and Nanda.” slip op. at 21

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

    “argument as to claim 1, Patent Owner does not expressly dispute that Spain-I and Nanda fail to disclose “wherein the chosen location signal strengths were measured by a second portable RF communication device.” PO Resp. 5–13. Dr. Almeroth testifies persuasively, for example, that “Nanda explains ‘receiv[ing] fingerprints from multiple mobiles devices’ allows for a ‘much larger database of available access points than would be found in a single mobile device.’” Ex. 1002 ¶ 186 (quoting Ex. 1006, 12:14–31). With respect to a motivation to combine, Dr. Almeroth testifies further that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered “multiple MUs to create/maintain a larger database of antenna station fingerprint information, like that suggested by Nanda (Ex-1006, 12:26-29), thus beneficially expanding applications of Spain-I’s disclosed features.” Id. ¶ 188.” slip op. at 27

  Patent outcomesUS 8,170,583 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,170,583
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. / Dell Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 17, 2025 · IPR2024-01482 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1, 2, 4, 8–10, 12, 13, 15, 18–20, and 25, exercising § 314(a) discretion after balancing the Fintiv factors and finding the merits not particularly strong.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “partes review “allays concerns about inefficiency and duplication of efforts,” and strongly weighs against exercising our authority to deny institution. Fintiv, Paper 11 at 6. Of the three district court proceedings, the Lenovo Group case, pending in the Eastern District of Texas, is the most significant to our analysis here. In the Lenovo Group case, Lenovo Group has not requested a stay. Prelim. Resp. 16. Patent Owner argues that the Lenovo Group case is not likely to be stayed based on that court’s low grant rate in other cases and the progress of that case in particular. Id. at 17. The district court in the HP case denied a stay without prejudice and stated that a stay could be reconsidered in the future depending on the outcome at the PTAB. Prelim. Reply 3. The Dell case has been stayed. Id. On this record, we decline to speculate as to how any of the involved district courts where no stay is pending might rule on any future motion to stay. Thus, we determine that, while one stay has been granted, the lack of a stay in the other underlying district court cases, especially the Lenovo Group case, is not sufficiently persuasive to weigh this factor against exercising discretion. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 12 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (informative), cautions against speculating whether the district court would grant a stay if one were requested. Therefore, this factor has a neutral effect on the overall balancing of the Fintiv factors. B. Proximity of Trial Date to Projected Statutory Deadline (Factor 2) The scheduled trial date for the Lenovo Group case is November 3, 2025, which is about six months prior to the expected date for the final written decision here (i.e., late April 2026). See Prelim. Resp. 20; IPR2024- 01429, Ex. 2002 (Lenovo Group case Docket Control Order), 1. Petitioner argues this trial date is uncertain. Prelim. Reply 3. Further, Petitioner focuses its argument on what it terms a “growing backlog” in the Eastern District of Texas and “associated scheduling uncertainty.” Id. at 4. Petitioner refers to the status of the HP case, which is currently set for trial on September 21, 2026, and the stay in the Dell case. Id. Patent Owner responds that “[b]oth the scheduled trial date and the date of trial [in the Lenovo Group case] based on median time-to-trial statistics occur months before a final written decision would be expected here.” Prelim. Sur-reply 4. Patent Owner asserts that the time-to-trial statistics for the Eastern District of Texas project a median time-to-trial of 21.9 months. Prelim. Resp. 20–21 (citing Ex. 2007, U.S. District Courts Federal Court Management Statistics–Profiles—September 30, 2024). This projection yields a trial date that is prior to the expected final written decision date of April 2026. Prelim. Sur-reply 4. As with the previous factor, the status of the Lenovo Group case is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The district court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 20. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is uncertain. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date earlier than the actual date set by the district court. Ex. 2007; Prelim. Sur-reply 1. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set in the Lenovo Group case confirms that the schedule set by the district court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial” slip op. at 9

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

    “E. Conclusion Regarding the Merits Petitioner does not present particularly strong merits. Petitioner’s arguments on the “bus limitation,” to succeed at trial, would require addressing a claim construction issue that was never addressed in the Petition and is arguably contradicted by the ’520 patent, which discloses transmitting packets representing a plurality of different control signals on a single bus. See Prelim. Sur-reply 2 (citing Ex. 1001, 7:34–38, 9:23–25, 9:50–54). Similarly, prevailing on the “modified protocol” issue would require proving that the HDMI–C protocol, which uses the same separate channel arrangement for CEC and DDC as standard HDMI, is sufficiently “modified” to meet the claim. Taking into account Patent Owner’s persuasive arguments supra in response, and for the reasons given, we do not find the merits of Petitioner’s position on either of these dispositive issues to be particularly strong.” slip op. at 20

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

    “and only to the extent necessary to resolve the issues in dispute. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Neither party proposes claim constructions for our consideration. Petitioner submits that it “for the purposes of this proceeding, the terms of the challenged claims should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and no terms require specific construction.” Pet. 8. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s position that no terms require construction. Prelim. Resp. 11–12. We determine there are no claim terms that need to be expressly construed for this Decision.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelDecided for patent owner

    “Patent Owner states that a person of ordinary skill “would have the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or equivalent training and three years of work experience with data communications systems or interfaces, including at least some experience with serial or display data communications systems or interfaces .” Prelim. Resp. 12. The differences between these nearly-identical definitions are minor and immaterial to our decision. We regard either description as consistent with the challenged patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect an appropriate level of skill).” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 7,856,520
• Dell Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01479 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution of IPR on claims 1, 4–5, 8, 11, and 14–16 based on Fintiv balancing, including the earlier district court trial date and weak merits.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The District Court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 8. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is speculative. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date of July 2025, earlier than the actual date set by the District Court. Ex. 2007; Prelim. Resp. 8; Reply 3. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set by Judge Gilstrap confirms that the schedule set by the District Court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial date in the Lenovo Group litigation as the main indicator of a trial court reaching the merits of the invalidity of the patent-at-issue before we issue a final written decision. Accordingly, this factor strongly favors exercising discretionary denial.” slip op. at 6

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayNot reached

    “First, Iwamoto’s “standby” mode is chosen specifically to avoid malfunction as explained above, and selecting a default mode of operation that bypasses the standby mode would undermine the stated purpose of Iwamoto’s standby mode. See, e.g., Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“An inference of” slip op. at 14

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

    “c) Knight5 Knight describes power source negotiation in a power management system. Ex. 1007 ¶ 4. Knight discloses that if the internal battery or external power source has sufficient power, it can connect with another device as a power source, otherwise, it attempts to connect as a power sink. Id. ¶ 42. The Petition does not explain a reason to combine Knight’s power 5 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. US 2008/0028237 A1, filed July 26, 2006. (Exhibit 1007, “Knight”). or Hsieh. Pet. 60. Grounds based on Knight are unpersuasive for at least this reason.” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denial
  Patents in suitUS 9,232,265
• HP Inc. / Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Universal Connectivity Technologies, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Apr 7, 2025 · IPR2024-01428 · APJ Miriam L Quinn · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution on claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 20-23, and 26 under its Fintiv analysis, finding the parallel trial date and other factors favored discretionary denial.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “is our focus here. As stated, that trial is set to occur about six months before a final written decision would issue in this proceeding. The District Court has stated that this trial date setting “cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause.” Prelim. Resp. 46. We are not persuaded by Petitioner’s unsupported argument that the trial date is speculative. We also consider the fact that the median time-to-trial statistic discussed by both parties projects a trial date of July 2025, earlier than the actual date set by the District Court. Ex. 2001; Prelim. Resp. 46; Reply 5. The fact that the time-to-trial statistic is earlier than the trial date set by Judge Gilstrap confirms that the schedule set by the District Court is credible and should be given weight. From this evidence, we are persuaded that we should rely on the trial date in the Lenovo Group litigation as the main indicator of a trial court reaching the merits of the invalidity of the patent-atissue before we issue a final written decision. Accordingly, this factor strongly favors exercising discretionary denial.” slip op. at 6

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

    “Finally, Petitioner argues obviousness over each of Banes and Calvignac. These assertions of obviousness rely on testimony on the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art of the “spare” code and flags as “out-of-band symbols.” Pet. 20−21. Petitioner also argues that it was “well-known” to include in-band symbols in data packets and to include out-of-band symbols in control indicators to obtain the benefit of allowing data payload information to be readily distinguished from control information. Pet. 63−64. The testimony cited in support relies on the disclosure of Shin ’464 for this statement.5 Ex. 1003 ¶ 225. The exact same disclosure of an 8-bit encoding technique that uses in-band and out-of-band symbols within a transmission is found in another Shin patent that is incorporated by reference in the ’905 patent and has overlapping inventors. Ex. 1006, 9:60−10:8, Ex. 1008, 5:15−28, Ex. 1001, 24:50−55. In other words, the alleged benefit may be better characterized as part of the inventor team’s work rather than a technique “well-known” in the art. And for this reason, Petitioner’s obviousness contentions are less persuasive. 5 U.S. Patent No. 5,974,464, filed September 30, 1996. (Ex. 1006, “Shin ’464”).” slip op. at 15

  § 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,154,905
• Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.Instituted
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01322 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 10–12, and 19 are obvious over Mooney and over Mooney in view of Lee.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” Under § 314, the Board may not institute review on fewer than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1359–60 (2018). If the Board institutes a review, it will institute “on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). Upon consideration of the Petition, the Preliminary Response, the Pre-Institution Reply, Pre-Institution Sur-Reply, and the evidence of record, for the reasons set forth below, we conclude the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim in the ’294 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of the ’294 patent.” slip op. at 2

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

    “the claims nor the specification of the ’294 Patent require such a narrow reading of the term ‘activation cue’” as that proposed by Patent Owner. Reply 1 (citing Prelim. Resp. 9–10). Operative claim language—“a cue receiver operatively linked to said electronic circuit for receiving an activation cue from a source external to said cellular phone”—does not limit “activation cue” to a predetermined bit sequence or predetermined indicator as argued by Patent Owner. Claim 1 further recites the “data conveyance switching element . . . being assigned a first state upon an activation cue having been received by said cue receiver,” which also does not limit “activation cue” to a predetermined bit sequence or predetermined indicator. Both parties, moreover, cite the same description of the structure and function of the “activation cue” in the ’294 patent: “This activation cue is in the form of a data communication of a specific type which will be recognized by electronic device 10 as an activation cue, for example a predetermined bit sequence.” Prelim. Resp. 22 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:24–27); Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:24–27); Sur-Reply 1 (citing same). The recited “activation cue,” when read in context and in view of the” slip op. at 13

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner

    “for the recited “data conveyance switching element” pursuant to §112, sixth Petition characterizes the corresponding structure as “a physical structure, a virtual program, or both because the ’294 patent explains that a switching element ‘can be any type of device allowing data to be conveyed according to alternate data conveyance operations,’ such as ‘a series of instructions programmed onto [a] microchip’ or a ‘decisional logical circuit,’ and ‘can be a physical structure, a virtual program, or both.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 9:28– 31, 9:40–41; Lipoff Decl. Ex. 1003 ¶ 64). The Petition identifies the claimed function as switching between inactive and activated states based on whether or not the cellular phone receives an activation cue. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:4–9, 4:18–23, 5:48–53; Ex. 1003 ¶ 64).” slip op. at 14

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

    “construction of an “external data exchange device” as a data transceiver coupled to a circuit that carries out the function of exchanging data. Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:4–6, 12:62, 13:28, Figs. 1, 3, 4; Ex. 2001 ¶ 48); see Pet. 7–8 (citing Ex. 1001, 2:14–17, 4:7–14, 9:3–6; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 67–68). Patent Owner states that “[a]n external data exchange device is not a transceiver but a device with a transceiver.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 48). On this preliminary record, we need not construe “external data exchange device” to decide whether or not to institute. To the extent there is a dispute over the plain meaning of “external data exchange device,” the parties are invited to address it in detail in their briefs following institution. On the present record, we determine that no further construction of claim terms is necessary to determine whether to institute a trial in this case. See, e.g., Wellman, Inc. v. Eastman Chem. Co., 642 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[C]laim terms need only be construed ‘to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The parties are free to address any further claim construction issues bearing on this inter partes review following institution.” slip op. at 16

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,022,294
• Google LLC v. DH International Ltd.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 24, 2025 · IPR2024-01321 · APJ Brian P Murphy · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the petition did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–13 were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “adequately support the assertion that Ong, or Ong in combination with Hoff, discloses, teaches, suggests, or otherwise renders obvious independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Therefore, the Petition does not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1–4, 6–9, and 11–13 are obvious over Ong and Hoff. See, e.g., Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”).” slip op. at 26

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “ANALYSIS A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends: A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ’333 patent would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, or a related field, and at least two years of experience in design, development, and/or testing of network-enabled consumer devices, and familiarity with payment cards, or the equivalent, with additional education substituting for experience and vice versa. Pet. 4–5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 48–50). Patent Owner states that it “agrees with Petitioner on the level of ordinary skill in the art.” Prelim. Resp. 11 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 29–32).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “We also credit the testimony of Mr. Zaheer that a “POSITA would understand that disabling the electronic credit card of Ong refers to the functioning of the credit card and not switching between data or data flows within the credit card as claimed in the ’333 patent.” Prelim. Resp. 33 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶ 95). Mr. Zaheer’s testimony is consistent with the disclosures in Ong and the ’333 patent and with Mr. Lipoff’s testimony. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 62 (“The card also includes a ‘disablement means’ for disabling use of the electronic credit card remotely by a card issuer or other describes is not the state of the claimed switching element because once disabled, the card cannot be reenabled; rather, it must be re-initialized.” Prelim. Resp. 34–35 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 99–100). Thus, we fail to see how Ong teaches or suggests the “data conveyance switching element” recited in limitation [1.e].” slip op. at 17

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “In an inter partes review, the burden of persuasion is on the petitioner to prove ‘unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence,’ 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), and that burden never shifts to the patentee.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2017 (en banc (quoting Magnum Oil)). A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)). Obviousness is resolved based on underlying factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17– 18 (1966). A party who petitions the Board for a determination of obviousness must show that “a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references to achieve the claimed invention, and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566 F.3d 989, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Pfizer, Inc. v. evidence and argument according to the above-referenced standard. We determine that the Petition does not satisfy the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). slip op. at 12

  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,628,333
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01250 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–5, 7, 9–16, or 20 unpatentable over the asserted grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “An inter partes review may be instituted only if “the information presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner, supported by Dr. Min’s testimony, proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had “at least a bachelor’s [degree] in [electrical engineering, computer engineering, or computer science], physics, or equivalent, and two years of experience with cellular telecommunications, radio-access network architectures, protocols and signal propagation in wireless networks.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 59). Dr. Min testifies that “[a]dditional education could substitute for professional experience and vice versa.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 59. Additionally, Petitioner contends that Dr. Min “exceeded this level of experience by the priority date.” Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1010 (curriculum vitae of Dr. Min)). In its Preliminary Response, Patent Owner does not take a position on the relevant level of ordinary skill in the art. See generally Prelim. Resp. At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’946 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 10

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

    “Neither party contends that any claim terms require an express construction to resolve the present controversy. Pet. 8 (“For purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner does not believe any terms require a formal construction.”); see generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, Petitioner explains that the Petition is structured such that “Ground 1 is based on Patent Owner’s infringement contentions in the district court litigation, where the claimed ‘MUD module’ is generally mapped to multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) receivers in a wireless network.” Pet. 2. Petitioner contends that “[u]nder this broad interpretation of a ‘MUD module,’ Walton’s MIMO receiver renders every challenged claim obvious.” Id. In contrast to Ground 1, the Petition states that “Ground 2 is based on the plain meaning of ‘MUD module,’ which is a component that detects, separates, and decodes signals from multiple users transmitting simultaneously over the same frequency band.” Id. Petitioner contends that, “[a]pplying the correct meaning of the term, Walton’s MIMO receiver does not necessarily comprise a MUD module.” Id. Therefore, Petitioner explains that “Ground 2 combines Walton with Learned, which expressly discloses [a] multi-user detector, and thus renders every challenged claim obvious in combination with Walton.” Id. at 2–3.7 In other words, the Petition presents Ground 1 and Grounds 2/3 as alternatives depending on the meaning of 7 Although not specifically relevant to claim construction, Petitioner explains that “Ground 3 further combines Walton and Learned with Quigley, to the extent Patent Owner argues Walton does not disclose providing a burst control input.” Pet. 3. “MUD module,” where Ground 1 is based on Petitioner’s understanding of Patent Owner’s interpretation of the term and Grounds 2 and 3 are based on Petitioner’s interpretation of the term as having its plain meaning. Petitioner further contends that “[e]very other claim term carries its ‘ordinary and customary meaning’ . . . .” Id. at 8. Although Petitioner presents a potential dispute regarding the meaning of “MUD module,” we need not construe this term expressly because the determination we reach herein does not depend on which meaning MUD module is applied. Accordingly, we do not construe any claim terms expressly because express constructions are not necessary to resolve the controversy before us. See Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 12

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Not reached

    “IV. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Patent Owners contends that the factors set forth in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential), weigh heavily in favor of discretionary denial. Prelim. Resp. 40–46; Paper 10. Petitioner disagrees. Pet. 74–77; Paper 9. In light of the conclusion reached above, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding discretionary denial.” slip op. at 25

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,089,946
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Collision Communications, Inc.Institution denied
  PTAB · Mar 21, 2025 · IPR2024-01248 · APJ Bart A Gerstenblith · IPR · Institution

  The Board denied institution because the Petition did not show a reasonable likelihood of proving claims 1–11, 16, and 21 unpatentable over the asserted obviousness grounds.

  RulingsInstitution decision

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

    “presented in the petition . . . and any [preliminary] response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2018). For the reasons given below, on this record Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of any of the Challenged Claims. Accordingly, we do not institute an inter partes review.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “At this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, we adopt Petitioner’s uncontested proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, which we find consistent with the level of ordinary skill in the art reflected by the ’071 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 12

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

    “Neither party proposes a specific construction of any claim term, although Petitioner contends each term should be construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Pet. 16; see generally Prelim. Resp. Accordingly, we need not construe any claim terms expressly because the meaning of the terms is not in dispute and an express construction is not necessary to resolve the controversy before us.” slip op. at 13

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “We find the Petition lacking in particularity because it does not clearly identify what aspect of Jin is alleged to teach the unique signal parameters (or unique estimated signal parameters) recited in claim 1. See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (“A petition filed under section 311 may be considered only if — (3) the petition identifies, in writing and with particularity, . . . the evidence that supports the ground for the challenge to each claim . . . .”). First, as reflected above, the Petition asserts that something called a “unique pilot parameter” teaches the recited unique estimated signal parameters. But “unique pilot parameter” is not a term or phrase recited in Jin. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (arguing the same). So, when Petitioner states “Jin discloses that the base station uses the unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique estimated signal parameters’) to ‘identify which user (i.e., mobile terminal) has transmitted the received data,’” it is not clear what element in Jin Petitioner intends to identify by the term “unique pilot parameter.” Dr. Min’s testimony does not help resolve the ambiguity in the Petition. In particular, Dr. Min also refers to a “unique pilot parameter (i.e., ‘unique signal parameter’) for each user.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 89. But, as noted above, Jin does not disclose an element referred to as a “pilot parameter” and it is not clear what element Dr. Min intended to identify in Jin.8” slip op. at 18

  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,814,071

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.