• Imperative Care, Inc. v. Inari Medical, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00289 · APJ Timothy G Majors · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–15 are unpatentable: claims 1–15 under Grounds 2 and 3, and claim 10 under Ground 4; Ground 1 did not establish unpatentability.

  RulingsFinal written decision

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

    “We have construed the “filament” term in multiple related proceedings and agreed with Patent Owner that the claimed filament requires flexibility. See Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. Specifically, we determined that the evidence supports Patent Owner’s position that “a POSA would have understood the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed ‘filament’ as a flexible length of material (e.g., one or more string(s), wire(s), tape(s)).” See, e.g., Ex. 1050, 23. We maintain that construction in this Decision for the reasons given by Patent Owner (see PO Resp. 24–32; PO Sur-reply 6–8), we disagree with Petitioner’s argument to the contrary (Pet. Reply 27–31), and we incorporate our analysis concerning the meaning of the filament term from the related proceedings identified above, which applies equally here.13 Ex. 1050 (Final Written Decision in 156 IPR); IPR2024-01157, Paper 35 (Final Written Decision) at 15–24. The parties agreed at the oral hearing that there is no additional argument or evidence 13 Although the ’005 patent is not directly related to the patents at issue in the 1157 and 156 IPRs, the ’519 Application that the ’005 patent purports to incorporate for providing all relevant disclosures about the filament term is a parent application to the challenged patents in the 1157 and 156 IPRs (see supra n.3). SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 809 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Where multiple patents derive from the same parent application and share many common terms, we must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted patents.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also construed the filament term consistently in other ongoing proceedings on related patents. See, e.g., Ex. 1045 (Institution Decision in the 728 IPR), 12–18; Ex. 1046 (Institution Decision in the 989 IPR), 13–21. already addressed in those related matters. Tr. 6:13–23, 23:19–26.” slip op. at 16

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner contends that the person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in August 2018 “would have had an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering or a related engineering discipline and 2–4 years of catheter design experience.” Pet. 17 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 35). Although Patent Owner states that it “disagrees” with Petitioner’s POSA definition, Patent Owner nevertheless applies that definition in this case. PO Resp. 32–33; see Tr. 22:23–23:5 (Patent Owner is “not disputing” Petitioner’s definition, asserting the definition “doesn’t make any difference in this case”).” slip op. at 13

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedPetitioner expert creditedMixed

    “We credit Dr. Zalesky’s interpretation of Schaffer on whether the POSA would have understood Schaffer as describing rigid actuating members. Dr. Zalesky testifies, for example, that a POSA would have understood from Schaffer’s disclosures about the actuating members being “machined” from metal or plastic, that such actuating members would be rigid. Ex. 2026 ¶ 101 (explaining “machining is a manufacturing process in which the desired part . . . is created using the controlled removal of bulk material” to produce a “rigid material”); Ex. 1005 ¶ 82 (“The actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 is machined from aluminum” and “[i]n another example, the actuating member 55 and the actuating button 261 are machined from plastic”); Ex. 2026 ¶¶ 102–103 (testifying the disclosed valve assembly technique in Schaffer (Ex. 1005 ¶ 83) also indicates that “rigid” actuating members are used). Mr. Thornton opines (without citation to any persuasive supporting disclosure) that a POSA “would have understood that Schaffer’s U-shaped actuating members would have preferably been formed from a thin, flexible material.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 113. But, at deposition, Mr. Thornton conceded that machined plastics and aluminum, like disclosed in Schaffer, are rigid. Ex. 2005, 168:2–6 (“Q. And you said that plastic that would be machined would be rigid, correct? A. I think that’s a fair statement.”). Although Mr. Thornton opines that Schaffer’s actuating members would “preferably”” slip op. at 29

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableUnpatentableMixed

    “For the reasons above, Petitioner has not established that the claimed “filament” is disclosed in the combination of Garrison and Schaffer and, thus, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 would have been obvious over Garrison and Schaffer. Petitioner’s challenge to independent claim 10 (and the claims that depend from claim 1 and claim 10) fails for similar reasons. Each of the challenged claims requires a “filament” and, given our construction of that term and our findings above that Schaffer does not teach or suggest the claimed filament, Petitioner has not proved by a preponderance of the” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 11,554,005 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,554,005
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00189 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claim 19 is unpatentable as obvious over Kim and over Nam; the challenge based on Lee and Park fails for lack of a reasonable expectation of success.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther

    “B. Patent Owner’s Disclaimer of Claims 17 and 20 As indicated above, Patent Owner filed a statutory disclaimer of claims 17 and 20 of the ’666 patent. See Ex. 2005. In view of Patent Owner’s statutory disclaimer, we treat claims 17 and 20 as having never been part of the ’666 patent. See Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp., ‘considered as part of the original patent’ in [35 U.S.C.] § 253 to mean that the patent is treated as though the disclaimed claims never existed.”). Because inter partes review cannot be instituted based on disclaimed claims, we do not consider claims 17 and 20 to be within the scope of this proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(e) (“No inter partes review will be instituted based on disclaimed claims.”); General Elec. Co. v. United Techs. Corp., IPR2017-00491, Paper 9 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (precedential) (denying institution in view of a statutory disclaimer of all the challenged claims). Thus, we confine our analysis in this Decision to claim 19, the challenged claim that has not been disclaimed.” slip op. at 2

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “(“POSITA”) “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar discipline, along with 2–3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, designing, or teaching) 3D memory devices, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may substitute for professional experience).” Pet. 24–25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–37). Petitioner further contends that the “POSITA would also have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about 3D memory’s structure, its component parts, and how it operates.” Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 34–37).” slip op. at 6

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

    “evidence from the complete record now before us, we determine that the claim term “curved side surface” encompasses any outer surface of the structure with curvature. See Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. F’real Foods, LLC, 908 F.3d 1328, 1338–1339 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that it is acceptable for the Board to adopt its own claim construction where the parties “had notice of the contested claim construction and an opportunity to be heard”). We do not adopt Patent Owner’s position that “curved side surface” requires the side surface to be curved along a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the structure (e.g., the z-axis).” slip op. at 12

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

    “curved side surface” are premised on its proposed claim construction which, as set forth above, we decline to adopt. Instead, we determined that “curved side surface” as used in the challenged claim encompasses any outer surface of the structure with curvature, which does not need to be curved in any specific direction. See § II.B.1, supra. Kim states: Embodiments of the inventive concepts in which the protrusion pad PAD_P has a rectangular parallel[] shape is illustrated, but the protrusion pad PAD_P is not limited thereto and, in some embodiments, may have a shape including a curved surface based on a virtual rectangular parallel[] shape, a cylindrical shape, or any shape. Ex. 1005, 8:29–34 (emphases added). Dr. Lee testifies that “[a] POSITA would have recognized that this includes configurations where the sides of the protrusion pads are curved, particularly to optimize electrical connectivity and mitigate stress at material interfaces.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 201. Dr. Lee further testifies that a POSITA would have understood Kim’s disclosure “teaches a variety of different protrusion pad PAD_P shapes” including “pads with curved sides when viewed in cross-section or pads with curved sides when viewed from above.” Id. ¶ 202. Accordingly, we determine that Kim discloses a cylindrically-shaped PAD_P that has a “curved side surface” as required by the challenged claim. slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 11,145,666 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 11,145,666
• Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00321 · APJ Christopher M Kaiser · IPR · Final written decision

  The Board held claims 1, 2, 5–7, 9, 16, and 17 not unpatentable because the asserted combinations did not establish the required purge-tower teachings or prior-art status.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had (1) at least a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a related field, and (2) at least two years of research or industry experience in 3D printing or materials used for 3D printing.” Pet. 5 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–16). Petitioner also argues that “[a]dditional experience could substitute for a formal degree or formal training (and vice versa).” Id. Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of skill, arguing that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Materials Science, or a comparable field and at least two years of experience related to 3D printing, with additional experience potentially being a substitute for a formal degree or training (and vice versa).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Neither party explains why the outcome of this case would be affected by the adoption of any of the proffered definitions of a person of ordinary skill in the art. We adopt Petitioner’s assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art, as it appears consistent with the ’324 patent and the asserted prior art. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 8

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownOther

    “According to the ’713 patent, “[p]urge tower 24 itself may be . . . recycled or otherwise discarded as desired.” Ex. 1001, 8:27–28. This description provides some support for Patent Owner’s view, because a purge tower too intimately integrated with the part would be difficult or impossible to recycle or discard. This is further supported by the ’713 patent’s statement that “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Id. at 8:30–34. It also is supported by Dr. Hickner’s testimony that the ’713 patent “clearly shows . . . the 24 purge tower separated from the part” and that “the purge tower is a separate physical object.” Ex. 2016, 28:8–10, 64:1–9. On the other hand, there is evidence supporting Petitioner’s view that, as long as the purge tower is generally separate from the part and the support structure, it may still make contact with those portions of the print. As noted above, “purge tower 24 may be printed at any suitable location on build substrate 44 (i.e., at any location in the x-y build plane not occupied by 3D part 20 or support structure 22).” Ex. 1001, 8:30–34. This language does not exclude locations adjacent to or in contact with the part or the support structure. Thus, determine that a “purge tower,” as that term is used in the context of the ’713 patent, may not be an integrated portion of a printed part or support structure but need not be free of all contact with the printed part or support structure.” slip op. at 9

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “There is evidence of record to support both Petitioner’s view and Patent Owner’s view. On the record developed at trial, however, we cannot say that the preponderance of the evidence favors Petitioner, who bears the burden of proof. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer teaches printing a layer of a purge tower each time the printer switches one extruder to the operating mode. Because proving the obviousness of claims 1 and 16 requires such a showing, Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 16 would have been obvious over the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer. 5. Analysis of Remaining Claims Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 or claim 16. Accordingly, they all include the limitations of either claim 1 or claim 16. Because, as discussed above, Petitioner has not shown that the combination of Priedeman and KISSlicer teaches or suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 16, Petitioner also has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2, 6, 7, 9, and 17 would have been obvious over that combination of references.” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artOther

    “On the record developed at trial, we agree with Petitioner. According to several industry forum posts, people interested in three-dimensional printing located the website where KISSlicer was posted between February 2012 and April 2012. Ex. 1028, 1 (post discussing and directing others to KISSlicer on April 11, 2012); Ex. 1031, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on March 16, 2012, and March 21, 2012); Ex. 1032, 1 (two posts discussing KISSlicer on February 11, 2012, and February 14, 2012). Thus, not only was it possible for people of ordinary skill in the art to locate KISSlicer; people of ordinary skill in the art actually did locate it. Accordingly, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that KISSlicer was publicly accessible.” slip op. at 19

  Patent outcomesUS 9,421,713 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,421,713
• X Corp. v. Sterling Computers CorporationAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00299 · APJ Bach V Hoang · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–22 are unpatentable as obvious over the stated Dumais-based and Kircher/Krug grounds; Patent Owner’s and Petitioner’s motions to exclude are dismissed as moot.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Our Institution Decision adopted Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Inst. Dec. 8–9. In its response, Patent Owner adopts Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill. See PO Resp. 14–15 (“Patent Owner and its expert adopt the Board’s definition for purposes of this Response”). Having considered the record, we continue to adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of skill, as articulated above. We are satisfied that Petitioner’s proposal comports with the level of skill necessary to understand and implement the teachings of the ’217 Patent. Accord Inst. Dec. 8–9.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)No construction neededNot reached

    “1. “computer program modules” The parties dispute whether four “computer program modules comprising” (1) “a monitoring module,” (2) “a first relevance measurement module,” (3) “a second relevance measurement module,” and (4) “a relevance analysis module” (collectively, “module limitations”) invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 and should be treated as means-plus-function limitations. See Pet. 8–18; PO Resp. 15–18; Pet. Reply 3–5; PO Sur-reply 4–7. However, the parties do not argue that the construction of these terms affects the analysis of Petitioner’s challenges. See PO Resp.; Pet. Reply; PO Sur-reply. Moreover, our analysis does not rely on any particular construction of these terms and, so, we need not resolve this dispute.” slip op. at 10

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

    “2. “one or more measures derived from the group consistent of” Petitioner asserts limitations 1[g] and 1[g][i]–1[g][iv] recite an open Markush group listing alternatively useable members. Pet. 20–21 (citing Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Abbot Lab’ys v. Baxter Pharm. Prod., Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (explaining that the listing of specified alternatives within a claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping)); See Ex. 1001, 47:47–58. Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s construction. See PO Resp; PO Sur-reply. As these terms are not in controversy, we need not opine on this construction.” slip op. at 10

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITANo construction neededNot reached

    “Petitioner’s and Patent Owner’s respective constructions overlap in their requirement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. See Pet. 18; PO Resp. 20–21; PO Sur-reply 10. Petitioner argues that Patent Owner’s construction “exclude[s] ‘groups’ from the claims” and further limits the scope of to users who share actions (Pet. Reply 8–9), but Patent Owner states that its proposed construction does not so limit the claims (PO Sur-reply 10). As such, there is no disagreement that “cognate” users share similar past user actions and assessments or are defined by similar direct input by the user. As there is no controversy, we need not, and do not, construe the meaning of “cognate.” However, Patent Owner’s requirement that “at least one other of the plurality of users” is specifically cognate to “the user” who was sent the content is plainly recited in the claim language itself. The claim recites a “relevance score of a piece of electronic content sent from a sender to a user” in the preamble and similarly again in limitation 1[g]. See Ex. 1001, 47:25–28 (emphasis added), 45:62–64. The limitation in question directly references the claimed “user” when reciting the cognate relationship: “identify at least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user.” Ex. 1001, 47:43–45 (emphasis added). As such, the claim language plainly supports Patent Owner’s requirement and Petitioner does not contest that requirement. See Pet. Reply 8. least one other of the plurality of users . . . that is cognate to the user” as requiring that the identified other user is cognate specifically to the user whose relevance score is being determined.” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 7,716,217 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR
  Patents in suitUS 7,716,217
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00118 · APJ Jo-Anne M Kokoski · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–14 were not shown unpatentable because the Petition did not establish the claimed adjacent pad groups, common ESD bus, or pad-to-pad bonding wires.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “would have had a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering or similar discipline, and 2–3 years of professional experience working with (e.g., researching, analyzing, designing, or teaching) ICs, or equivalent level of skill, knowledge, and experience (e.g., an advanced degree may replace some of the professional experience and vice versa). This POSITA would have been aware of and generally knowledgeable about IC design, layout, manufacturing, packaging, and ESD protection. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 29–33). Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of a” POSITA “for purposes of this IPR.” PO Resp. 10. In the Institution Decision, we adopted the assessment offered by Petitioner. Dec. 7. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’164 patent and the asserted prior art, we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 7

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

    “customary meaning of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, claim terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Only those terms in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Based on our review of the complete trial record and the arguments raised by the parties, we determine that it is not necessary to expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ dispute. Realtime Data, 912 F.3d at 1375.” slip op. at 7

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “includes segmented ground rails 350, 355. . . . The package substrate 310 includes a package common ground rail 360, and the segmented SoC ground rails 350, 355 are independently connected to the package common ground rail 360 via separate connections 370, 375 respectively.”). As set forth above, Dr. Foty describes the three ground lines in Saint Figure 7-7 as “segmented rails” when discussing the combination of Saint and Haralabidis, thus equating the three ground lines in Saint Figure 7-7 with Haralabidis’ segmented ground rail. Ex. 1003 ¶ 368. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Foty, however, adequately addresses how or why a POSITA would have understood that the three separate grounds lines in Saint Figure 7-7 were “segmented rails” like the segments of the single ground line described in Haralabidis. In contrast, Dr. Khatri credibly testifies: Haralabidis teaches the use of a “common ground rail” to connect “segmented ground rails.” Haralabidis, 3:9–22, 3:34– 40, 3:65–4:12. A POSITA would understand “segmented ground rails” to refer to a single ground signal that has been “segmented.” That is fundamentally different from the design of Saint’s Figure 7-7 that Dr. Foty relies on, which uses three different ground signals, GND1, GND2, and GND3—not a single ground signal that has been “segmented.” Because of that, a POSITA would not have been motivated to change the Figure 7-7 design completely to connect three separate signals (GND1, GND2, and GND3) together as Dr. Foty proposes. Ex. 1003 ¶ 368. Indeed, for these reasons, a POSITA would have understood Haralabidis’ teachings of a “common ground rail” are inapplicable to Saint’s Figure 7-7. Ex. 2010 ¶ 129. Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Foty’s testimony with respect to the modification of Saint Figure 7-7 leave an analytical gap that does not apprise us of why a POSITA would have modified Saint Figure 7-7 to include a common ESD bus as described in Haralabidis.” slip op. at 37

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “For these reasons, we find that Yoshinaga’s statement that “[r]eference potential pads are not shown to simplify the drawing” indicates that reference potential pads are not depicted in Yoshinaga Figure 6, and determine that Yoshinaga Figure 6 does not disclose “a plurality of pad groups, adjacent and connected to the plurality of ESD buses” as recited in claim 6. Petitioner also argues that a POSITA would have understood that power supply pads 3, 4, and 58 in Yoshinaga “could just as readily be used as reference pads” and it would have been obvious “to use the pads immediately next to the saved areas as reference pads (e.g., pads 5 and 6) as pad assignments were left to the designer’s discretion.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139). Petitioner asserts that “selecting which pads to use for ground, power signals, etc. is a design choice that depends on factors like chip size, the number of I/O signals, and the number of pads available.” Pet. 31 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 137–139). Petitioner states that such discretion would be to preserve Yoshinaga’s saved area for other circuitry as taught by Saint. Pet. 31–32 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139; Pet. 19–23 (§ IX.A)). Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Foty adequately explain, however, why a POSITA would have made this specific design choice, namely, replacing power supply pads 3, 4, and 58 with reference pads. Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139; see also Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1069 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Merely stating that a particular placement of an element is a design choice does not make it obvious.” (quoting Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., 636 Fed. Appx. 575, 578 (Fed. Cir. 2016))). Petitioner offers the general proposition that pad assignments are left to the designer’s discretion, but this does not provide a reason why a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Yoshinaga Figure 6 as proposed. Pet. 31; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 137–139. We have determined that Yoshinaga does not show (rather than does not label) reference pads. Because all of Yoshinaga’s illustrated pads are power supply pads, Petitioner’s proposed reassignment of pads would not be a simple matter of rearrangement of an existing mixture of power supply and reference pads, but require that reference pads be imported from elsewhere, and power supply pads be moved to some unspecified location. Petitioner’s arguments and Dr. Foty’s testimony with respect to the modification of Yoshinaga Figure 6 leave an analytical gap that does not apprise us of why a POSITA would have modified Yoshinaga Figure 6 to include reference pads in the place of power supply pads 3, 4, and 58. We agree with Patent Owner that none of Petitioner’s rationales” slip op. at 20

  Patent outcomesUS 10,879,164 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips
  Patents in suitUS 10,879,164
• Rocket Media, LLC D/B/A Launch Labs v. Fullthrottle Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 9, 2026 · IPR2025-00148 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Doughty and Van Boucq, and over Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art in June 2021 would have had “(1) at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field plus at least one year of experience working on computer networking, or (2) at least 3 years of experience working on computer networking, even without a formal degree.” Pet. 14 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 44–47). Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s proffered definition. PO Resp. 23. Petitioner’s proposed definition appears to be consistent with the disclosure of the ’947 patent, and we adopt it for purposes of this Decision. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that the prior art itself may “reflect[] an appropriate level” of ordinary skill in the art) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).” slip op. at 10

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

    “The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We determine that no terms require express construction to resolve the parties’ disputes in this case, but address certain claim construction arguments made by the parties in the analysis below. See id.; Inst. Dec. 11 (determining that “no express claim construction is necessary for any claim terms”); PO Resp. 23 (agreeing that “no express constructions are necessary to resolve this IPR”). slip op. at 11

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We find that Petitioner has shown that the combination of Doughty and Van Boucq accounts for these limitations. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s arguments that claim 1 somehow excludes, what Patent Owner calls, the “Unique Identifier/Tracker Embodiment.” See PO Resp. 27, 31. Beginning with the language of the claims, the claims are silent as to where the “location data” recited in limitation 1[c] is stored. See Tr. 21:7– 16 (Patent Owner agreeing that “the stored location data does not actually have a required location at all” in the claim, and need not be stored in a database). Nor does Patent Owner direct us to any claim language that would specifically exclude “location data” stored on the user’s device. See Sur-reply 2–3. “The patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee clearly redefines the term (lexicography) or disavows claim scope (claim disavowal).” Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., 159 F.4th 1, 8 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Patent Owner directs us to statements in the Specification, stating “[f]or example, the computing device may access a database or other storage location that maintains a mapping of unique identifier to a browser session, a user computing device, and/or location data.” Ex. 1001, 9:52–55; see also id. at 39:26–30 (same), 43:55– 59 (same). But none of those passages amounts to lexicography or disavowal of claim scope. Indeed, when read in their full context, these passages support a broad reading, not a narrow reading, of the claims. The full passage of the Specification states: The computing device may determine, at 406, whether there is a unique identifier that is associated with the user (e.g., the user computing device, the browser, and/or the browser session) stored on the computing device. For example, the script may inform the computing device that there is no unique identifier for the user computing device. The computing device may determine that there is no unique identifier associated with the user computing device when there is no location data stored for the user computing device. For example, the computing device may access a database or other storage location that maintains a mapping of unique identifier to a browser session, a user computing device, and/or location data. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine whether there is a unique identifier for associated with the user based on presence of a location tracker (e.g., cookie) installed in the browser application on the user computing device. Ex. 1001, 9:43–59. The passage above is full of language that indicates that the patentee did not intend to limit the claims to a single embodiment. Indeed, the specific portion of the passage cited by Patent Owner begins with “[f]or example” and further states “[a]dditionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine whether there is a unique identifier for associated with the user based on presence of a location tracker (e.g., cookie) installed in the browser application on the user computing device.” Id. at 9:52–59 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Specification states “[a]dditionally or alternatively, the computing device may determine the location data using the tracker installed in the browser application on the user computing device.” Id. at 10:2–5. The Specification also explains that the tracker may “maintain data related to the user and/or user computing device.” Id. at 12:62–63. Based on these disclosures, we find that the Specification supports a reading where the location data are stored in the user computing” slip op. at 25

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

    “We find persuasive Petitioner’s reasoning that a POSITA would have been motivated to modify Doughty, based on Doughty’s own teachings regarding cookies and similar files, and would have recognized that the techniques of Van Boucq would have offered an efficient and commonly used way to determine whether the user already has been assigned a unique identifier. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 153. Patent Owner’s arguments about the precise contents of Van Boucq’s connection cookie attack Van Boucq individually and ignore the combination and modifications that Petitioner proposes. In the combination, Petitioner proposes incorporating the unique identifier from Doughty into Van Boucq’s connection cookie. See Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1008, 16:59–17:33; Ex. 1007 ¶ 153). As for Patent Owner’s contention that “[n]othing in the record suggests that Van Boucq’s connection cookie could contain any information about either Doughty’s table 105 Profile ID or Doughty’s hashed email address,” PO Resp. 33, as Dr. Gottesman testifies, “[a] cookie is a small piece of data (text file).” Ex. 2012 ¶ 55. We fail to see why a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would have any difficulty incorporating Doughty’s alphanumeric unique identifier into a text file. See Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 153, 166. Thus, we find that Petitioner has shown a motivation to combine Doughty and Van Boucq for these limitations.” slip op. at 30

  Patent outcomesUS 11,556,947 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,556,947
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 5, 2026 · IPR2025-00160 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–13, 15–18, and 20–31 were not shown unpatentable because the proposed Toge-Kumar combination did not establish the claimed remote internet site hosted on a server.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityRpi dispute resolved for petitionerDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner filed a Response. Paper 23 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply. Paper 27 (“Reply”). Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply. Paper 35 (“Sur-reply”). Additionally, during trial, Patent Owner filed an authorized Motion to Terminate, alleging that Petitioner failed to name a real party in interest (namely, Petitioner’s corporate parent, Resmed Inc.). Paper 37. Petitioner filed an opposition. Paper 38. Patent Owner filed a reply. Paper 39. We denied the Motion to Terminate. Paper 44.” slip op. at 2

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

    “We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent further discussion of the meaning of any claim term is necessary to our decision, we provide that discussion below in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability. C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 11

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art because it appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level). D. Summary of the Asserted Prior Art” slip op. at 12

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “summarized above, we determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have implemented Toge’s physician-side computer as a web server using a “localhost” architecture as proposed by Petitioner because such a configuration cannot communicate with external devices over the public internet, a deficiency that directly contradicts Petitioner’s stated motivations for the combination of permitting broad data access. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Chatterjee, expressly acknowledged in his Reply Declaration that when a client and server reside on the same machine, the communications between them do not traverse the internet. Ex. 1069 ¶ 8. Specifically, Dr. Chatterjee cited the Microsoft Computer Dictionary’s definition of “localhost” as “[t]he name that is used to represent the same computer on which a TCP/IP message originates,” noting that “[a]n IP packet sent to localhost has the IP address 127.0.0.1 and does not actually go out to the Internet.” Id. (citing Ex. 1070, 316). Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed configuration of placing both the client and web server on Toge’s physician-side computer would create a closed loop of communication that does not reach the broader network. Id. As noted by Patent Owner, “[i]f ‘the physician-side computer and the web server are on one machine,’ the local web server would not communicate with other devices via the Internet.” Sur-Reply, 3–4 (comparing Ex. 1069 ¶ 19 with id. at ¶ 8). Thus, the consequence of Petitioner’s proposed Toge-Kumar configuration is that other devices in the system, such as the PAP device that generates the treatment data and any remote client devices that might need to access that data, would be unable to send data to or retrieve data from the localhost web server. Patent Owner persuasively argues, supported by evidence of record, that under Petitioner’s proposed configuration, “the PAP device could not send data thereto nor could other clients receive data therefrom, as only the local client browser can exchange data.” Id. (citing Ex. 1069 ¶ 8); see Ex. 2003, 4 (one-tier architecture “is not suitable for a web application” because “it can only access data available in a single computer or server” and therefore “is not suitable for a web application.”); Ex. 2022, 3 (Unlike more advanced multi-tier systems, a one-tier architecture “cannot transmit information from one client machine to another.”); Ex. 2020, 4 (While “the client process and server process can be on the same computer,” this architecture “is rarely used today” precisely because it cannot “take advantage of the distributed computing environment.”).” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 11,786,680 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,786,680
• Resmed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.No claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 4, 2026 · IPR2025-00158 · APJ Sheridan K Snedden · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20 were not shown unpatentable because Orbach did not disclose a single computer or processor performing all claimed remote analysis, output, and display functions.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • BurdenNot shown unpatentable

    “After considering all of the arguments and evidence presented on the full trial record, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–6, 8–17, 19, and 20 are unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Ciulla and Orbach. We find that the deficiencies in Petitioner’s arguments regarding claim limitations [1.d], [1.f], and [1.g] are dispositive and we address the parties’ arguments concerning those limitations below.” slip op. at 24

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedOther

    “Pet. 8. Patent Owner agrees to apply Petitioner’s proposed definition of POSITA. PO Resp. 4. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed definition of a POSITA because the proposed level of ordinary skill in the art appears to be consistent with the cited prior art and is undisputed on this record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (indicating that the prior art itself may reflect an appropriate skill level).” slip op. at 11

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

    “the Board need not construe any terms. Pet. 9. Patent Owner agrees. PO Resp. 4. We determine that no express construction of any claim term is necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). Nevertheless, in our analysis of the asserted grounds of unpatentability below, we discuss the scope of certain claim terms, e.g., “the computer” and “the processor.” C. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art” slip op. at 11

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable

    “Accordingly, to show obviousness, Petitioner must show in Orbach that either (a) remote server 140’s output to viewing station 150 constitutes “display” within the meaning of the claim, or (b) viewing station 150 receives data “over cell towers” notwithstanding the intervening server. We determine that Petitioner has failed to do so on this record. Our analysis follows.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 11,690,512 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,690,512
• Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 3, 2026 · IPR2022-00981 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand

  On remand, claims 8–11, 13, 17, and 19 were held unpatentable over Rautiola, Regnier, and Sainton; claim 15 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandMixed

    “8–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19, and remanded “for consideration of the patentability of those claims.” Id. at 14. We understand both the reversal and vacature are with respect to Ground 1 of alleged unpatentability, not Ground 2, because the Federal Circuit’s decision did not discuss anything relating to Ground 2. Paper 43. The parties agreed. Paper 44. In this remand proceeding, neither party requested the filing of additional briefing or evidence. In a telephone conference call, both parties expressed agreement with the Board (1) that “there is no issue regarding collateral estoppel or issue preclusion with respect to dependent claims 8– 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19, and (2) that the remand proceeding would not involve the Board revisiting any matter or issue concerning alleged obviousness of claims 1, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19 over Ground 2.4 Papers 43, 44. The parties also agreed that the remand proceeding would only involve the Board reviewing the alleged obviousness of dependent claims 8–11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 as obvious over Rautiola, Regnier, and Sainton. Id. We have authority to conduct this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. On the record before us, which is the same as the record before us at the time we issued the first final written decision (Paper 34), we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 8– 11, 13, 17, and 19, but not claim 15, of the ’936 patent are unpatentable over Rautiola, Regnier, and Sainton.” slip op. at 3

  • Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner

    “5. Petitioner’s Request to Discredit Dr. Cooklev’s Declaration Petitioner makes several arguments discrediting Dr. Cooklev’s declaration (Ex. 2031) and asserts that Dr. Cooklev’s declaration should be accorded little to no weight. Reply 13–14. We have already considered and rejected this request in the Final Written Decision issued on November 7, 2023. Paper 34, 21–23. Our reasoning need not be reiterated here. Petitioner does not persuade us that Dr. Cooklev’s declaration testimony should be accorded little to no weight.” slip op. at 15

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “Patent Owner does not dispute Petition’s definition of level of ordinary skill. See generally PO Resp. Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Cooklev, accepts Dr. Kotzin’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art. Ex. 2031 ¶ 24. We adopt Petitioner’s proposal regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. This level of ordinary skill in the art is supported by the testimony of Dr. Kotzin (Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 20–22) and is consistent with the level reflected in the ’936 patent and the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).” slip op. at 9

  • Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner

    “only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.” Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019). A prior art reference constitutes analogous art if it is “from the same field of endeavor” or “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that a reference is analogous art. See Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 66 F.4th 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2023).” slip op. at 16

  Patent outcomesUS 8,472,936 mixed
  § 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,472,936
• Stingray Group Inc. / Stingray Music USA, Inc. v. Edwin A. Hernandez-MondragonNo claims unpatentable
  PTAB · May 29, 2026 · IPR2025-00349 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–21 were not shown unpatentable because Avellan did not disclose the claimed sequence of screen captures used to assemble a media stream.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelOther

    “Patent Owner submits a similar definition and does not dispute the Petition’s characterization of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 22. No express finding is necessary. The level of ordinary skill in the art is reflected by the prior art of record. Any perceived difference in how each party characterizes a POSITA does not change our analysis or conclusions.” slip op. at 5

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

    “on ordinary and customary meaning. Pet. 14–15; PO Resp. 22. We determine that construction of claim terms is not necessary to resolve the disputes raised by the parties in this proceeding.” slip op. at 6

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “c. Analysis “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan does not anticipate claim 1 because it does not assemble a media stream of multimedia items using the recited screen captures. See PO Resp. 26–29. We agree with Patent Owner that the plain language of the claim requires more than transmitting individual media items. Sur-reply 21. To the extent that Avellan captures images, those images do not meet the claimed requirements for a “temporal sequence of screen captures” in the independent claims, which must (1) be of the web page rendered by a browser, (2) “define all the content of the web page at a given time,” (3) “illustrate a dynamic change of at least a portion of the content over time” when two of them are compared, and (4) used to assemble “the at least one media stream.” Rather, the record better supports Patent Owner’s argument that Avellan transmits the multimedia items separate from any media stream assembled from screen captures. PO Resp. 26–29; Sur-reply 21.” slip op. at 8

  • Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable

    “All other challenged claims require the “generating” and “assembling” operations because they depend from claims 1, 12, or 17. Petitioner does not allege that the additional references—Durante, Ma, Suzuki, Wanamaker, Heikens, Matthews, or Wilsher—teach or suggest the “temporal sequence of screen captures” recited in claim 1. Rather, Petitioner’s reasoning in the challenges to the dependent claims pertaining to the screen captures mirror the rationale presented in the independent claim. See, e.g., Pet. 25 (arguing that Avellan’s screen captures correspond to the video content in the challenge to claim 2), 26–27 (arguing that Avellan obtains screen captures from a playback of a video on the webpage in the challenge to claim 4). Petitioner’s argument that Avellan teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 depend on the reasoning and insufficiently supported characterizations of Avellan in the challenges based on 35 U.S.C. § 102, as discussed above. See Pet. 40–60. grounds based on anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or teaches or suggests these operations in the grounds based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Petitioner has not met its burden to show that any challenged claim is unpatentable as anticipated by Avellan or obvious over any of the combinations of Avellan and the other cited references.” slip op. at 15

  Patent outcomesUS 10,123,074 not shown unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness
  Patents in suitUS 10,123,074

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.