- Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. H2 Intellect LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Oct 20, 2025 · IPR2025-00480 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because the Elliott/Jacob grounds did not show a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–15 were unpatentable, and Musk did not cure the deficiencies.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“c) Summary We may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). We have determined that, at this stage of the proceeding and on the present record, the information presented in the Petition does not show that Petitioner is reasonably likely to prevail with respect to its challenge to claim 1 based on the combination of Elliott and Jacob. Specifically, the Petition does not demonstrate that the proposed Elliott/Jacob combination would teach or suggest either limitation [1.e] or limitation [1.a] of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, the Elliott/Jacob combination does not teach or suggest the commensurate limitations in independent claims 6 and 11. Compare Ex. 1001, 13:42–14:5, 14:31–15:5, 15:38–16:21.” slip op. at 19
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer science or a comparable field of study, plus at least three years of professional experience in advertisement delivery systems or other relevant industry experience. Additional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education. Pet. 3; Ex. 1002 ¶ 79. Patent Owner does not offer a competing formulation, stating that “[f]or purposes of this preliminary response only, Patent Owner applies the same skill level proposed by Petitioner.” Prelim. Resp. 12. We find Petitioner’s formulation to be consistent with the evidence of record at this stage of the proceeding, including the asserted prior art and the ’296 Patent, and, accordingly, we adopt and apply that definition for purposes of this Decision. B.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner
“After reviewing the parties’ arguments and evidence, we determine that no express constructions of the terms identified by Petitioner are needed 6 For the term “recording a request identifier associated with the request,” Petitioner asserts that it is unclear which “request” is at issue, Pet. 7–8, while Patent Owner argues that “the ‘request’ refers to the ‘request for content to be used within the registered application program’ as described in claim element 1.h.” Prelim. Resp. 13. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that it is not necessary for us to construe this term for purposes of this Decision. 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)). C.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“as obvious over the combination of Elliott and Jacob. Pet. 9–60. Patent Owner contests Petitioner’s mapping of the cited prior art to four limitations in independent claim 1 (and the commensurate limitations in independent claims 6 and 11): limitations [1.a], [1.b], [1.d], and [1.e]. Prelim. Resp. 14– 39. Patent Owner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Elliott with the teachings of Jacob. Id. at 39– 46. We agree with Patent Owner that the proposed combination does not teach or suggest elements [1.a] and [1.e], for the reasons discussed below. Because the absence of these two elements from the cited prior art is a sufficient basis for denying institution, we do not address Patent Owner’s remaining arguments.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 8,433,296 - PTAB · Oct 15, 2025 · IPR2025-00762 · APJ Scott B Howard · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–5 and 8–12 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 would have been obvious over Koskinen.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine whether to institute an inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (2024); 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (2024). Inter partes review may not be instituted unless “the information presented in the petition filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 311 and any response filed under [35 U.S.C.] section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). “When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a). For the reasons set forth below, upon considering the briefing and the evidence of record, we determine that the information presented in the Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Accordingly, we institute inter partes review on all of the challenged claims based on all of the grounds identified in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field and at least two years of practical experience with design or development of telecommunication and/or wireless communications systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 19–21). Petitioner further argues that “[a]dditional education” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the purposes of this Decision, we need not expressly construe any claim terms.6 See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known and been familiar with information elements (IEs) that specified an RLC reordering timer value based on (1) general knowledge that IEs carried information in RRC messages and (2) that 3GPP TSs describe an IE carrying recording timer duration information for the RLC layer. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 151; Ex. 1014, 219–20. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art “that the PDCP timer information, which used similar variables as its RLC counterpart (Koskinen, ¶¶37-38), would also be carried in a PDCP configuration IE.” Ex. 1003 ¶ 151.” slip op. at 13
Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,863,573 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00629 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR of claims 1–20 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Beard and Laufer.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“We may institute an inter partes review when “the information presented in the petition . . . 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). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of one or more claims of the ’711 Patent. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claims 1–20 on the grounds identified in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the following qualifications: [E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace or avionics fields, or (2) at least four years of experience in any of the above industries. 1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the applications from which the ’711 Patent claims priority were all filed after this date, the post-AIA version of §103 applies. See Ex. 1001, codes (60), (63). 2 U.S. Patent No. 9,769,387 B1, iss. Sept. 19, 2017 (Ex. 1009). 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0059692 A1, pub. Mar. 2, 2017 (Ex. 1010). 4 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0106800 A1, pub. May 3, 2012 (Ex. 1021). 5 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0161911 A1, pub. June 8, 2017 (Ex. 1007). 6 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2013/0301905 A1, pub. Nov. 14, 2013 (Ex. 1024). 7 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0004844 A1, pub. Jan. 5, 2012 (Ex. 1025). 8 PCT App. Pub. No. WO 2017/123477 A1, pub. July 20, 2017 (Ex. 1022). 9 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0160751 A1, pub. June 8, 2017 (Ex. 1005). Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 50–54). Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s proposed formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is (1) consistent with the ’711 Patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Singhose. B.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“But the Detecting Limitations of claims 1, 19, and 20, merely require that a target be “detected.” The Detecting Limitations do not require that target detection be performed “aboard the reference UAV,” and claim 19 does not recite or require “machine learning.” Moreover, the Specification makes clear that the claims should not be limited to aspects of the disclosed embodiments, as Patent Owner proposes to do here. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 2:56–59 (“The invention is described in connection with such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to any embodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims . . . .”) Patent Owner additionally fails to cite any lexicographic definition or clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope sufficient to limit the claims in the manner it proposes. We, thus, are not persuaded that the Detecting Limitations require “applying aboard the reference UAV a machine learning model to the capture image for: (i) identifying a target in the captured image.”” slip op. at 8
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Not entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“Priority Date of the Challenged Claims Petitioner contends that claims 1–20 of the ’711 Patent “should not have priority to the October 9, 2016 filing date of U.S. provisional [patent] application 62/405,972 due to a lack of written description support.” Pet. 3. Petitioner thus “assumes” a priority date of October 1, 2017 (the filing date of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/556,449) for purposes of this proceeding. Id. at n.2; see also Ex. 1003, code (60). Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s contention that the ’711 Patent is not entitled to a priority date earlier than October 1, 2017. See generally Prelim. Resp. For purposes of this decision, we accept Petitioner’s undisputed contention that the ’711 Patent is not entitled to a priority date prior to 10 Any determination, no matter how designated in this Institution Decision (except our ultimate decision to institute), is preliminary and non-binding. Our Final Written Decision, based on a fully developed record of arguments and evidence, will state our binding determinations, findings, and conclusions. If a party disagrees with this preliminary construction, or any other determination set forth in this Institution Decision, that party should present its arguments at trial. The parties are reminded that any arguments not made during trial will be considered waived. Patent Owner is further reminded that arguments in the Preliminary Response are not preserved and will be considered waived at trial unless those arguments are re-raised in the Patent Owner Response. The parties are additionally reminded that arguments raised in subsequent briefing must be set forth in full in the briefs themselves, and may not be incorporated by reference from prior filings such as the Preliminary Response. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3). October 1, 2017.11 Accordingly, Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that all of the cited references qualify as prior art. See Pet. 4–6. D.” slip op. at 11
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,514,711 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00530 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
Instituted review of claims 1–9 on all petition grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Whitmarsh.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . 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). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claims 1–9 on the grounds asserted in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Functional claiming / §112(f) means-plus-function › Whether §112(f) applies (Williamson, nonce words)§112(f) appliesDecided for petitioner
“permission module,” as used in claim 1, has “a well understood structural meaning in the computer technology field.” 792 F.3d at 1350. Rather, the limitation in question is “drafted in the same format as a traditional means-plus-function limitation, and merely replaces the term ‘means’ with ‘nonce’ word ‘module,’ thereby connoting a generic ‘black box’ for performing the recited computer-implemented functions.” Id. And, while claim 1 recites the “outputs” of the permission module (i.e., a determination regarding the permissions of an aerial system), “the claim does not describe how the [permission module] interacts with other components in the [discrimination system] in a way that might inform the structural character of the limitation- in-question or otherwise impart structure to the [permission module] as recited in the claim.” Id. at 1351. We also reviewed the Specification, and we agree with Petitioner that the Specification identifies the following structure as corresponding to the claimed permission module: “storage on-board the disruption module 105, storage on-board the identification receiver 102, a remote computing system connected to the disruption module…, or [] any other suitable computing system.” See Pet. 12; Ex. 1001, 9:64–10:4. slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableInstituted
“from nearby UAVs wireless communications that include information or signatures unique to the UAVs, such as a MAC [media access control] address of the UAV, that is used to identify the transmitting UAV.” Pet. 16– 18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 20, 27; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 8, 10, 13, 15–17; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 117–118). For example, Petitioner cites Whitmarsh’s teachings that “[a]ll drones have a unique identifier, such as a media access control (MAC) address, that can be determined or read by the DDS [drone defense system] and can be used to identify the drone.” Id. at 16 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 13). Based on these teachings, Petitioner submits that the signal received from the UAVs includes an aerial system identifier signal unique to the aerial system. Id. at 17–18 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 27; Ex. 1006 ¶ 13).” slip op. at 10
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,249,199 - PTAB · Oct 8, 2025 · IPR2025-00525 · APJ Scott C Moore · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claim 21 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood it is obvious over Beard.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“presented in the petition . . . 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). If we institute an inter partes review, the trial must encompass all claims and grounds identified in the Petition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(a) (“When instituting inter partes review, the Board will authorize the review to proceed on all of the challenged claims and on all grounds of unpatentability asserted for each claim.”). For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail in establishing the unpatentability of claim 21, the sole challenged claim. We, therefore, institute inter partes review of claim 21 on the grounds asserted in the Petition. B.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“[E]ither (1) a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Aerospace engineering, or an equivalent field, as well as at least 2 years of academic or industry experience in the aerospace, avionics, telecommunications, or electronic device manufacturing industry, or (2) at least four years of industry experience in any of the above industries. Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 47). Patent Owner does not presently dispute Petitioner’s proposed formulation. See generally Prelim. Resp. For 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2016/0253907 A1, published Sept. 1, 2016 (Ex. 1010). 4 PCT Pub. No. WO 2016/078093 A1, published May 26, 2016 (Ex. 1011). 5 PCT Pub. No. WO 2016/154949 A1, published Oct. 6, 2016 (Ex. 1012). 6 U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. US 2016/0127890 A1, published May 5, 2016 (Ex. 1013). 7 PCT Pub. No. WO 2015/043123 A1, published Apr. 2, 2015 (Ex. 1014). purposes of this Decision, we adopt and apply Petitioner’s formulation regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art because it is (1) consistent with the ’959 Patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Dr. Chowdhary. B.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“But before describing the embodiments cited by Patent Owner, the Specification plainly states: “Any terms not expressly defined herein have their conventional meaning as commonly understood by those having skill in the relevant art(s).” Ex. 1001, 4:64–67. Thus, the Specification itself cautions against construing the claim terms such as “secure identifier” as limited to the scope of the disclosed embodiments. Here, Patent Owner has not cited any express definition of “secure identifier,” or identified any explicit disclaimer of claim scope that might justify narrowing the scope of this claim term to specific embodiments disclosed in the Specification. In the absence of such a definition or disclaimer, we are not persuaded that the scope of the claim term “secure identifier” should be limited to specific aspects of the preferred embodiments cited by Patent Owner. See Prelim. Resp. 7–14. On this record, and at this stage of the proceeding, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction and preliminarily construe “secure identifier” as “a credential that can be used to securely verify the identity of a device, such as an airborne object or ground-based transmitter.”8” slip op. at 10
- Disclosure Requirements (§112) › Written description (Ariad)Written description inadequateNot entitled to earlier dateDecided for petitioner
“’071 Application lack adequate written description support for the “secure identifier” claim limitation. For a patent claim to be entitled to the priority date of an earlier-filed application, the earlier application must provide complete written description support for the claim as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). L.A. Biomedical Rsch. Inst. at Harbor-UCLA Med. Ctr. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 849 F.3d 1049, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“L.A. Biomed”). To satisfy this requirement, the written description must “reasonably convey” to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession on the claimed priority date of each limitation of the later-claimed subject matter. L.A. Biomed, 849 F.3d at 1057. It is not enough that an earlier application’s disclosure “renders the later-claimed invention obvious;” as “the disclosure must describe the claimed invention with all its limitations.” L.A. Biomed, 849 F.3d at 1057. On this record, we agree with Petitioner that the ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application lack adequate written description support for the “secure identifier” limitation of claim 21. We have preliminarily construed “secure identifier” as “a credential that can be used to securely verify the identity of a device, such as an airborne object or ground-based transmitter.” See supra § II.B. As discussed above, the Specification of the ’959 Patent does not use the term “secure identifier,” but the Specification contains extensive discussion of the need for an identification credential that is secure (e.g., difficult for a bad actor to clone or impersonate). See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:56– 65 (discussing the need for a system that is difficult to “clone”), 10:20–49 (discussing the need “trust” between a drone and ground-based equipment, and the need for a way to verifying the drone’s credentials), 11:5–12:62 (disclosing the use of encryption and a rotating SSID to generate a secure identifier for a drone). None of the portions of the Specification cited above is present in the ’153 Provisional or the ’071 Application. See generally Ex. 1006, 1007. The ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application discuss the need for identifiers for low-altitude aircraft (see, e.g., Ex. 1006, 2; Ex. 1007, 9), but there is no discussion of any need for an identification credential to be secure or resistant to cloning or impersonation. See generally Ex. 1006, 1007. The ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application do not disclose the use of encryption, SSIDs (much less rotating SSIDs), or any other technologies for the purpose of verifying the authenticity of an identification credential. See generally id. Based on our review of the ’153 Provisional and ’071 Application, we preliminarily conclude that neither of these applications would have reasonably conveyed to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor then had possession of the concept of the “secure identifier” that was later claimed in the ’959 Patent.” slip op. at 12
Claim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,713,959 - Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.InstitutedPTAB · Sep 29, 2025 · IPR2025-00775 · APJ Jason J Chung · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–9 and all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable, including over Carmel and Mattavelli.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“1. Principles of Law A claim is unpatentable under § 103 if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter, as a whole, “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of 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 skill in the art; and (4) when in evidence, objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness (i.e., secondary considerations, such as commercial success, long-felt but unsolved need, failure of others, etc.).5 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). We analyze the asserted grounds based on obviousness with the principles we identify above in mind.” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art include “(1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case.” Id. at 696–97. Relying on the testimony of Dr. Polish, Google argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have possessed at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field requiring learning computation principles, and two years of work experience in networking or streaming media systems, particularly audio and video, over the Internet. Additional education could compensate for less practical experience and vice versa.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“In the Petition, Google states that it “does not presently contend that any [claim] term requires express construction.” Pet. 6. In response, Withrow acquiesces; in particular, Withrow argues “the Board need not construe any terms of the ’849 Patent. Petitioner does not contend any [claim] terms require express construction.” Prelim. Resp. 13 (citing Pet. 6). Based on the preliminary record, there is no readily discernible controversy between the parties that requires us to construe any claim terms at this time. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundInstituted
“Turning to rationale to combine, Google contends that Carmel and Mattavelli are both directed to processing multimedia data playback “for the appreciation of a user,” while providing the highest perceived audio and video output quality possible in view of system constraints to ensure playback continuity. Pet. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1003, 10:48–54, 11:9–18, 7:35– 49, Figs. 3D, 6B; Ex. 1004, 2309, 2310). Google argues that both Carmel and Mattavelli pertain to compression of multimedia data using well-known coding and compression standards for video streaming. Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:25–26, 11:24–52; Ex. 1004, 2309–2311). Google argues a PHOSITA would appreciate both Carmel and Mattavelli complement each other because Carmel pertains to addressing constraints to available network bandwidth, whereas Mattavalli relates to addressing limits on available processing resources at the client/multimedia player. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1003, Abstract, 7:36–41; Ex. 1004, 2309–2312). Google argues that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the complementary teachings in Carmel and Mattavelli to create a more robust streaming system that addresses both bandwidth constraints and client processing limits to provide a best possible playback experience. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 212–215). Google argues that Mattavelli teaches merely optimizing transmission bandwidth is not sufficient and is potentially harmful, which provides an express motivation to combine Carmel’s and Mattavelli’s complementary teachings to ensure that different, related links in the streaming playback chain are optimized together. Pet. 53 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 216–217; Ex. 1004, 2310). In addition, Google argues Carmel contains an express disclosure that would have motivated a PHOSITA to combine Carmel with Mattavelli’s complementary teachings because Carmel states that multimedia playback is achieved “preferably with only a minimal necessary transmission and decoding delay.” Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 218; Ex. 1003, 10:50–54). Withrow does not specifically respond to these arguments, except for limitations 1[c.ii] and 1[c.iv] discussed infra. See generally Prelim. Resp. Nonetheless, the burden of persuasion remains on Petitioner to demonstrate unpatentability. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Based on the preliminary record, we discern no deficiency in Google’s characterizations of Carmel, Mattavelli, or the general background knowledge in the art. In addition, for purposes of institution, we are persuaded by Dr. Polish’s testimony concerning the relevant disclosures in Carmel and Mattavelli.” slip op. at 22
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,771,849 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.No claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00270 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 15–20 were not shown unpatentable because Hankins did not teach limitation 15.3; claims 1–14 were disclaimed.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner does not dispute Petitioner’s proposal of the level of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 6. Petitioner’s proposal is supported by the Reddy Declaration and is consistent with the ’595 patent and the asserted prior art. Accordingly, we apply Petitioner’s articulation in our obviousness evaluation below.” slip op. at 14
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“B. Claim Construction Beyond plain and ordinary meaning, Petitioner does not propose any term for claim construction. Pet. 13. Patent Owner does not argue any claim construction issue. See generally PO Resp. The argument and evidence provided by the parties regarding limitation 15.3 is dispositive. See Section II.E. below. Our analysis of limitation 15.3 does not turn on any claim construction question. Id. Accordingly, we do not need to construe any claim term. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). We apply the plain and ordinary meaning of all claim terms, as would have been understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the ’595 patent.” slip op. at 14
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“D. Claims 1–14 as Obvious Over Kommula As already noted, Patent Owner has disclaimed claims 1–14. Ex. 3001. We do not analyze claims 1–14 as the challenge is mooted by the filing of the Statutory Disclaimer.” slip op. at 15
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“350 receiving a request for a listing of “services” from a gateway device and provisioning one or more tunnel servers has not been shown to teach generating “a list of available servers.” There is no persuasive evidence to support Petitioner’s assertion. Petitioner relies on unsupported argument because, at best, Hankins discloses gateway devices 311 and 321, each of which is located in different logical broadcast domains, requesting services from one another. Ex. 1005, 12:9–16. This particular disclosure, however, does not appear to implicate the functionality of Hankins’s controller 350, much less result in controller 350 generating a list of available tunnel servers that would allow gateway devices 311 and 312 to exchange a listing of “services” therebetween. Petitioner’s reliance on Hankins’s controller 350 provisioning additional tunnel servers both to improve performance and without human intervention fares no better. Ex. 1005, 25:45–55. There is no indication in Hankins that this provisioning performed by controller 350 is done in response to receiving a request for a list of available tunnel servers from either gateway device 311 or 312.” slip op. at 20
Patent outcomesUS 11,108,595 not shown unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,108,595 - Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Umbra Technologies Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00497 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Hankins alone or in the stated combinations with Munger and Treuhaft.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Based on the plain language alone, there are “end-to-end tunnels” which “connect[] the first device and the second device” of the network system. In addition, “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. As already noted, the parties appear to agree that the specification does not define explicitly an “end-to-end tunnel.” In describing Figure 33 of the ’505 patent, reproduced above in Section I.D.2, the specification describes Figure 33 as illustrating “GVN Tunnel from LAN to EDP to SRV_AP to EPD to LAN. This variation illustrates an end-to-end GVN tunnel(s) between edges of two LANs via one SRV_AP.” Ex. 1001, 33:8–11 (emphasis added). The specification further describes Figure 33 as showing one tunnel between EPD-1 and AP-1. This is joined to a second tunnel between AP-1 and EPD-2. There are three neutral hops within the Third Layer of the GVN represented by NH1, NH2, and NH3 as compared to the 13 hops on the base Internet between EH3 and EH15. Id. at 33:15–19. This disclosure shows the end-to-end GVN tunnel has two hops, one between EPD-1 and AP-1, and one from AP-1 to EPD-2. The intermediate connection at AP-1 teaches the tunnel may be interrupted, contrary to Patent Owner’s assertion that Figure 33 of the ’505 patent supports a construction requiring the tunnel to be “uninterrupted.” See PO Resp. 9–10; see also Section II.D.2 below (addressing Patent Owner’s “uninterrupted” argument).” slip op. at 19
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Patent Owner’s assertion that an “intermediate tunnel” is not an “endto-end tunnel. See, e.g., PO Sur-reply 20–21 (arguing Petitioner’s annotated version of Figure 2 of Hankins teaches only “intermediate tunnels”). Given our claim construction supra, we find Hankins’s tunnels are “end-to-end tunnels” even if they are made of separate segments. Based on our final construction, and for the reasons discussed in Section II above, on this complete record we find that Petitioner has shown that Hankins teaches or suggests limitation 1.3. For completeness, we have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence explaining how Hankins alone or in combination with Munger teaches the remaining limitations of claim 1, and we agree with and adopt Petitioner’s analysis. See Pet. 30–32, 38–44. Accordingly, Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger.” slip op. at 30
Patent outcomesUS 10,630,505 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,630,505 - Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC v. Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00736 · APJ Lisa A Murray · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4–7, and 9 are unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle and Kosten; claim 11 is unpatentable as obvious over Garfinkle, Kosten, and Allen.
RulingsFinal written decision- ExcludeMotion to exclude, grantedPetitioner expert discountedGranted
“Our reviewing court has held that if a declarant fails to qualify as a person of ordinary skill in the art, then that person’s testimony regarding the knowledge or motivations of one of ordinary skill in the art is irrelevant as a matter of law. Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377–78 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“To offer expert testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan in a patent case—like for claim construction, validity, or infringement—a witness must at least have ordinary skill in the art. Without that skill, the witness’ opinions are neither relevant nor reliable.”). Mr. Daniels’ declaration consists of an analysis of the cited prior art in comparison to the challenged claims and a discussion of whether there would have been a 2 The motion does not seek to exclude the declaration of the named inventor of the ’725 patent, Nick Stiliadis. See Ex. 2109 (Stiliadis Declaration). motivation to combine the prior art. Ex. 2121 ¶¶ 4–20. Mr. Tulchin’s declaration addresses claim construction issues. Ex. 2131 ¶¶ 5–35. Each declarant, therefore, addresses issues that must be considered from the vantage point of a POSITA at the time of the invention, meaning a person with the level of ordinary skill defined in Section II.E.1 above. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (claim construction); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (obviousness). If Mr. Daniels and Mr. Tulchin do not qualify as POSITAs, as Petitioner alleges, then their opinion testimony is inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 (Testimony by Expert Witnesses). We find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish that Mr. Daniels qualifies as a POSITA in relation to the ’725 patent. Mr. Daniels has an undergraduate degree in engineering physics in addition to a law degree. Ex. 2121 ¶ 2. His declaration, however, does not establish that he also has “one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” See Section II.E.1 above. Mr. Daniels characterizes his non-legal work experience as follows: The rest of my professional career has been spent working in my own companies in the research, development and prototyping/commercialization of a number of different technologies, principally including fishing rod technology, digital video file transport, storage and processing, LED-based light-emitting tapes, drone control systems, wearable medical related electronic devices and breath-based diagnostic devices. Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; see also Ex. 1023, 99 (Daniels Deposition) (describing work on “a suite of interactive television innovations,” including “the first working pause button”). None of the projects identified appears to relate to “marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network.” Patent Owner argues that Mr. Daniels “was involved (at the time of the filing of the application which matured into the ’725 patent) in making inventions, that dealt with interactive television, video pause buttons and video file provision over the Internet.” Sur-Reply Br. 6. However, neither Mr. Daniels’ declaration nor his deposition testimony assert that he ever worked on “video file provision over the Internet,” let alone that he did so for one year or more. See Ex. 2121 ¶ 3; Ex. 1023, 98–100. We find that the evidence in the record is not sufficient for us to conclude that Mr. Daniels qualifies as one of ordinary skill in the art. We further find a lack of evidence establishing that Mr. Tulchin qualifies” slip op. at 9
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the following definition of the level of skill for one of ordinary skill in the art: “a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field plus one year of experience related to marketing and distribution of multimedia material over a computer network, or the equivalent.” Dec. 9. Patent Owner’s proposed definition differs from the Board’s only in that it adds a Bachelor of Science in engineering physics to the list of degrees that one of ordinary skill in the art might possess. See id. We view engineering physics as being related to the fields of electrical engineering, computer engineering, and computer science. Accordingly, following a review of the full record, we view Patent Owner’s proposed definition in its Response as consistent with the ’725 patent and the asserted prior art, and we apply it in our analysis below.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaning
“When interpreting the meaning of a claim, “we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Patent Owner has, briefly, proposed six claim terms for construction: exhibition; exhibitor; broadcast exhibitor; distribution; marketing; and storing. PO Resp. 10. The Petition states that “[t]o resolve the grounds presented herein, Petitioner does not believe that any term requires explicit construction.” Pet. 12. We see no reason why “exhibition” and “exhibitor” should be understood as having a meaning as narrow as Patent Owner proposes. “Exhibition” and “exhibitor” encompass more than just a showing by “one in the exhibition business” because the specification of the ’725 patent identifies certain “exhibitors” that are not “in the exhibition business”: e.g., a high school, libraries, and other non-profit organizations. Ex. 1001, 12:38–41 (“schools, libraries, and other non-profit organizations”), Fig. 1 (“high school”). The plain and ordinary meaning of “exhibitors” is at least broad enough to encompass the types of exhibitors identified in the specification: movie theaters, television stations, satellite television operators, cable television operators, and non-profit organizations such as high schools. Ex. 1001, 4:20–22, Fig. 1. We further determine that some of these exhibitor types, including at least satellite and cable television operators, are “broadcast exhibitors.” Moreover, we find that the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “distribution” is not so narrow as to be limited to “the business of marketing films and providing copies to venues,” as Patent Owner proposes. See PO Resp. 10 (emphasis added). The claimed invention is a “method of marketing and distributing multimedia,” which is not limited to films. We agree with Petitioner that the term is at least broad enough to encompass distribution of any type of multimedia to any type of exhibitor contemplated in the specification. See Ex. 1001, 1:20–25 (multimedia types); Reply Br. 6. Similarly, the plain and ordinary meanings of “marketing” and “storing” are not limited to Patent Owner’s specific examples: interesting individuals in seeing a film and saving to non-volatile storage, respectively. See PO Resp. 10; Tr. at 57:3–7. The invention is directed to marketing and distributing multimedia, not just films, Ex. 1001, 16:21, and while the Specification refers to storing multimedia on “hard drives,” id. at 4:35–37, 4:44–52, there is nothing in the Specification, claims, or prosecution history that would limit storage only to hard drives or other non-volatile storage. The intrinsic evidence suggests that the proper construction of each” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Garfinkle’s video distribution system to implement Kosten’s distribution method to achieve the improvements described therein, such as: access to a large number of video products and advertising materials available at a centralized location (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), improved advertising capabilities (Ex-1007, 54; Ex-1005, 1:42–49, 1:54–2:12), and improved distribution processes resulting in lower shipping and handling costs and labor intensity, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, cost reductions for movie theaters, increased control over time and locations of exhibitions by studios and distributors, an ability to scale up or down distribution based on success in theaters, and an ability to track and monitor sales and marketing data (Ex-1007, 52, 54). Pet. 14 (citing Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (A motivation to combine exists when the “improvement” results in a product or process that is “stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient.”)). Petitioner further asserts that such a person would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving the objective of efficient content distribution through the proposed combination of Garfinkle and Kosten with no change in their respective functions because: (1) both are “from the same field and address the same well-known issues”; and (2) both references purport to achieve this objective in similar and predictable ways, “such as using the well-known teachings of digitizing content, correlating multimedia and associated advertising materials, and connecting multiple user sites to the central station through a public communications system.” Id. at 13, 16–17 (internal citations omitted) (citing Ex. 1005, 2:58–3:5, 3:32–49, 4:37–39; Ex. 1007, 54); Ex. 1002 ¶ 68. Patent Owner contends that there would have been no motivation to combine Kosten and Garfinkle because each represents a “complete solution[] to different file transport modes, Kosten involving simple file transmission to a theater and billboards, and Garfinkle involving file transmission to a [video-on-demand] user. Neither has a problem which is addressed by the other.” PO Resp. 33. Petitioner argues, however, and we agree, that “(1) a known technique can provide motivation to combine and (2) a known technique does not need to improve upon the primary reference—it just must be a ‘suitable option.’” Reply Br. 21 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2023)). Thus, it does not matter that Kosten and Garfinkle each represent a complete and functional solution to digitally transporting media files. If the references in the combination address a known problem, such as issues with multimedia distribution, see Pet. 13–14, and the proposed combination is a suitable solution, then there would have been a motivation to combine the two references. Moreover, Petitioner persuasively argues that by combining Kosten and Garfinkle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to achieve benefits such as lower shipping and handling costs, improved security against piracy, wider and more flexible distribution capabilities, an ability to more easily scale distribution up or down as needed, among other benefits. Pet. 14. We find that these benefits would have provided a sufficient motivation to combine Garfinkle’s technical implementation of a distribution process for large multimedia files with Kosten’s proposed business application, “beaming” films directly to theaters via satellite. Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary are without merit.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,574,725 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,574,725 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067
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.