• Abbott Laboratories v. Miracor Medical SASome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Jun 10, 2026 · IPR2025-00114 · APJ Annette R Reimers · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14–16, 18, and 19 are unpatentable under §103; claim 20 was not shown unpatentable.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Expert testimonyDenied

    “IV. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE Patent Owner seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Wieselthaler’s Declaration (Exhibit 1041), portions of Mr. Crosby’s Reply Declaration (Exhibit 1042), portions of the deposition transcript of Dr. Wieselthaler (Exhibit 2028), and the exhibits “upon which that testimony is based” (Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050). Mot. 1. According to Patent Owner, the Motion was made “to preserve objections previously made in the record.” Id. (citations omitted). Patent Owner did not timely move to strike any of the evidence at issue as being outside the scope of reply evidence. Patent Owner asserts that because an inter partes review must be based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (citing 35 U.S.C. § 311(b)), the testimony of Mr. Crosby and Dr. Wieselthaler concerning “various physical devices allegedly known” to a person of ordinary skill in the art is inadmissible, along with all of the exhibits (consisting of printed materials such a journal abstracts, press releases, and papers) related to those physical devices. Id. at 3–4; see also Mot. Reply 1–4 (arguing that “devices that Petitioner’s witnesses assert were the basis of an inter partes review”). According to Patent Owner, Dr. Wieselthaler was unable to “link two of these physical devices to the printed prior art asserted in this [inter partes review], but those attempts fell apart during his cross examination.” Id. at 4. Patent Owner further reasons that because the evidence “cannot be the basis” of an inter partes review, it “has no tendency to make any fact of consequence in this trial more or less probable,” “is irrelevant and not admissible,” “presents substantial danger of confusing the issues, causing undue delay, and wasting time in this trial,” and “are not ‘based on sufficient facts[,] the product of reliable principles and methods[, or] ‘a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.’” Id. at 7 (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401–403, 702) (modification in original). With regard to Exhibits 1015, 1038, 1044, 1046, 1049, and 1050, Petitioner argues, and we agree, that Patent Owner identifies no plausible legal theory for their inadmissibility based on the contention that they discuss physical devices. See Mot. Resp. 3. We also agree with Petitioner that the exhibits are not “the basis for any ground” asserted in this proceeding, and may be properly relied upon by Dr. Wieselthaler and Mr. Crosby as support for their rebuttal testimony directed to Patent Owner’s arguments disputing Petitioner’s asserted motivation to combine the prior art relied upon in the instituted grounds. See id. at 3–4. In regard to the disputed testimony of Dr. Wieselthaler and” slip op. at 77

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed board ownOther

    “1. “magneto coupling” Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “a second magnetic device . . . positioned to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Ex. 1001, 5:34–37. Claim 11 recites, in relevant part, “the second magnetic device positioned axially closer to the first magnetic device than to the magnetically driven rotor so as to magnetically drive rotation of the magnetically driven rotor relative to the one or more walls via a magneto coupling with the first magnetic device.” Id. at 6:42–48. Petitioner argues that “magneto coupling” means “a transfer of torque from one rotating permanent magnetic component to another rotating permanent magnetic component via a magnetic field.” Pet. 8–9 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 68–87). According to Petitioner, this construction is consistent with the ’879 patent, which describes “a coupling between two rotating ‘bar magnets’—a drive wheel rotates one bar magnet which causes another bar magnet (connected to a rotor) to rotate.” Id. (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 54–55 (analyzing Ex. 1001, 2:28–52, 4:44–64, Fig. 2)). Patent Owner argues that “magneto coupling” should be afforded “its plain and ordinary meaning, which would encompass a magnetic coupling through both rotating magnets and the use of a rotating magnetic Owner directs us to the testimony of Mr. Leschinsky, who explains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the ’879 patent to use “magneto coupling” to generally describe “a way to couple the rotor to a drive element while sealing the two from one another and avoiding use of a direct mechanical coupling.” Ex. 2015 ¶ 67. According to Patent Owner, “Petitioner provides no recognizable basis for limiting the plain meaning of magnetic coupling to one type of magnet and excluding another type of magnet.” PO Resp. 6–7 (citing Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc., v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989–992 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not provide a sufficient basis for limiting the plain meaning of “magneto coupling.” That the ’879 patent describes embodiments using bar magnets does not serve to require the use of permanent magnets for the recited “magneto coupling.” See Sisvel Int’l S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., 81 F.4th 1231, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 (“[A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments.”)). Moreover, the claim language here is not so limited. 13 Patent Owner notes that Petitioner’s grounds of unpatentability based on Wampler and Bourque depend on the disclosure only of electromagnetic drives in each reference, implying that “Petitioner does not believe its own proposed narrower construction.” PO Resp. 6; see also Pet. 8 (Petitioner alleging that in the Parallel Proceeding Patent Owner “conflates ‘magneto coupling’ . . . with a stator drive using a stationary electromagnet, instead of a rotating magnet, to rotate the rotor magnet,” and asserting that as the basis for Petitioner’s reliance on Wampler and Bourque as teaching a “magneto coupling” in this proceeding (citing Ex. 1019, 7; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84–87)).” slip op. at 24

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

    “reasons discussed above. See supra Section III.D.3. Accordingly, because Petitioner’s contentions are premised on an unsupported claim construction that we reject, Petitioner fails to show how Wampler teaches or suggests “a magnetically driven rotor . . . axially adjacent to a first magnet device,” as required by claims 1 and 11, as well as by claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14– 16, and 18–20, which depend from either claim 1 or claim 11. In its Reply, Petitioner suggests that “[u]nder [Patent Owner’s] construction from the [Patent Owner Response], Wampler also teaches or suggests this limitation,” because Patent Owner “concedes [that] ‘axially adjacent’ components ‘have” slip op. at 36

  Patent outcomesUS 11,572,879 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 11,572,879
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Apr 29, 2026 · IPR2024-01493 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1, 3, 5, 7–11, 14, and 15 are unpatentable as obvious; claims 2, 4, 6, 12, and 13 were not shown unpatentable because the references did not establish entirely crystallized CoFeB layers.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’167 patent. Dec. on Inst. 6. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had “a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and at least one year of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent,” or “a Master’s degree in electrical engineering, physics, materials science, or a related field, and four years of experience in the research, design, and/or development of magnetic/spintronic devices, or the equivalent.” Id. (citing Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 25)). We also found that “[l]ess work experience may be compensated by a higher level of relevant education, and vice versa.” Id. Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’167 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); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 7

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “Here, neither party sets forth any term for claim construction. Pet. 17; see generally PO Resp. Thus, for purposes of this Decision, we afford the claim terms their plain and ordinary meaning. See, e.g., 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) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”)).” slip op. at 8

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

    “In addition, we agree with Petitioner and find that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have been motivated to replace either or both of Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR and lower Hf [(coupling field)] and Hc [(coercivity)].” Pet. 24, 27; Ex. 1055,30 2270 (“[I]t is natural to replace both the free and pinned layers to CoFeB to further increase the TMR value.”); Ex. 105631 ¶¶ 67–68 (“[B]oth the ferromagnetic layers 5, 7 are made of an FeCoB”32 for “improvement of the TMR ratio.”); Ex. 1024 ¶¶ 129, 132. We credit Dr. Bokor’s cited testimony as it is consistent with the cited evidence. Moreover, as Petitioner explains, “[r]esearchers were . . . interested in optimizing MTJs to improve MRAM performance,” and “[h]igher TMRs long promised improved performance for MRAM.” Pet. 6 30 Dexin Wang et al., 70% TMR at room temperature for SDT sandwich junctions with CoFeB as free and reference layers, 40 IEEE Trans. Magn. 2269–71 (July 2004). 31 US 2004/0136232 A1, published July 15, 2004, to Hosomi. 32 We find persuasive Dr. Bokor’s testimony that “a skilled artisan [would have] understood that CoFeB and FeCoB refer to the same alloy.” Ex. 1024 ¶ 121. 36–44) (emphasis omitted). In addition, we agree with Petitioner that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have found it obvious to use Parkin’s CoFeB layer in place of Bowen’s electrodes to increase TMR” in light of Parkin’s explicit teachings. Pet. 27; Ex. 1024 ¶ 133. In particular, Parkin explicitly teaches that “very high TMR values are unexpectedly found for MTJs with highly textured (100) MgO tunnel barriers but with nominally amorphous storage layers.” Ex. 1062, 18:49–51. Notably, Parkin provides that “[t]he TMR of the device of F[igure] 3A is nearly two times higher than the highest TMR ever reported in prior art devices using conventional alumina tunnel barriers.” Id. at 18:63–65; Pet. 27. And as we discuss above, Parkin teaches that Figure 3A’s MTJ may be inverted, such that the storage layer is formed beneath the tunnel barrier. Ex. 1062, 17:7–10. In addition, we agree that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Bowen in the manner Petitioner proposes, as forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys was known. Pet. 28. As Petitioner argues, “forming electrodes with CoFeB alloys in MTJs was known and had been successfully done,” and thus we are persuaded that “one of skill would have found it to be a straightforward, predictable, and desirable improvement to TMR, Hf, and Hc in Bowen’s” slip op. at 21

  • Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › Teaching awayTeaching away not foundDecided for petitioner

    “We find unavailing Patent Owner’s arguments that Bowen teaches a “radically different manufacturing process[] from the claimed invention,” and that Bowen “went to heroic lengths to provide a crystalline (001) bottom electrode that provides a template for epitaxially growing a crystalline MgO(001) layer.” PO Resp. 2 (emphasis omitted). Patent Owner describes in detail Bowen’s specific manufacturing process, including the specific structure of the MTJ manufactured, and argues the claimed invention differs. PO Resp. 30–33. These arguments are inapposite. Petitioner cites the specific teachings Petitioner relies on from Bowen, rather than adopting the entirety of Bowen’s process or MTJ. See, e.g., Pet. 21–36 (citing the portions of Bowen—that in combination with Parkin—teach claim 1). Petitioner is not “compelled to adopt every single aspect of [Bowen’s] teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.” Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). We also find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that Bowen and Parkin each teach away from Petitioner’s combination because Parkin used boron to avoid crystalline electrodes whereas Bowen tried to achieve perfect crystalline electrodes. PO Resp. 4. As we discuss above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB to increase TMR. And Patent Owner does not identify in either reference a specific teaching that criticizes, discredits, or otherwise 35 M. Jimbo et al., Thermal stability of spin valves using amorphous CoFeB, 165 J. Magnetism & Magnetic Materials 308–11 (1997) (“Jimbo”). combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” slip op. at 23

  Patent outcomesUS 10,680,167 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 10,680,167
• Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1Some claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 27, 2026 · IPR2024-01447 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–2 are unpatentable as obvious over each Bowen-based combination; claims 3–4 were not shown unpatentable, and the Nagahama-based grounds failed for all claims.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are 5 Nagahama, EP 1391942 A1, published February 25, 2004 (Ex. 1027, “Nagahama”). made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). The level of ordinary skill in the art is also reflected by the prior art of record. See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Consistent with the Institution Decision (Dec. 7), we adopt the assessment offered by Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’134 patent and the asserted prior art. Patent Owner does not dispute that Dr. Bokor is qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art in accordance with the assessment adopted. See Tr. 90:9–15. Patent Owner, however, questions Dr. Bokor’s knowledge on the formation of crystalline materials and seeks to exclude his related testimony. See PO Resp. 1–2, 27; PO Mot. Excl. 12–15. We address this issue infra Section V.” slip op. at 7

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

    “Petitioner “submits the claim terms should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and no claim construction is necessary to find the claims unpatentable.” Pet. 24. Patent Owner does not raise any claim construction issues in its Response. See generally PO Resp. We determine that we need not expressly construe any claim terms to resolve the parties’ disputes. See 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))).” slip op. at 9

  • Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDenied

    “A reply may only respond to arguments raised” in the patent owner response. 37 C.F.R § 42.23(b). The Consolidated Trial Practice Guide states that responding “does not mean proceed[ing] in a new direction with a new approach,” and “[w]hile replies . . . can help crystalize issues for decision, a reply . . . that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence may not be considered,” that is, “Petitioner may not submit new evidence or argument in reply that it could have presented earlier, e.g. to make out a prima facie case of unpatentability.” Consolidated Trial Practice Guide § II.I (last updated Dec. 12, 2025) (“CTPG”), available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/trial-practice-guide. We are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s assertions that Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin should not be considered. As discussed supra Section II.D.3.i above, the Petition includes the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes were used to modify Bowen, the MgO polycrystalline or single-crystal layer would still have the same 001 orientation. Pet. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1024 ¶ 129; Ex. 1062, 9:58–10:2, 18:49–51; Ex. 1005, 4:30–32). Petitioner’s support in the Petition references disclosures relating to Parkin’s Figure 3A (Ex. 1062, 18:49–51), which discloses a MgO(100) tunnel barrier, and the Petition also notes that the structure of Figure 3A may be inverted. Pet. 40 (citing Ex. 1062, 17:7–10). Patent Owner’s arguments, in large part, are related to Petitioner’s arguments in the Reply relating to Parkin’s Figure 11. Parkin’s Figure 11 is an embodiment where the structure of the devices of Figure 3A is inverted. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–33. We do not find that Petitioner’s arguments that are at issue in the Reply represent a new direction in its approach—the Petition is clearly based on the assertion that if Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used in Bowen, the device would have a MgO(001) tunnel barrier layer. Further, the Petition refers to Parkin’s disclosure that the device in Figure 3A may be inverted, which would be encompassed by the Figure 11 embodiment. Moreover, in the Institution Decision, we invited additional briefing on whether Parkin’s storage magnetic electrode was an amorphous ferromagnetic electrode, which relates to Parkin’s Figure 11 (Dec. 28–29). We are also not persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that the Petition’s assertions do not correspond to what Petitioner argues in the Reply because they were referred to in the section pertaining to limitation 1[e]. The Petition includes a cross-reference in the limitation 1[d] discussion on the tunnel barrier layer limitation: “if Sunai’s or Parkin’s CoFeB electrodes are used as described in Claims 1[e] and 2 in this Ground, one of skill would understand that the MgO . . . would still have the same (001) orientation.” Pet. 33. Further, Petitioner’s arguments in its Reply properly respond to arguments made on contested issues. Patent Owner’s contentions on the merits in its Response are largely based upon the assertion that the modified MTJ of Bowen would not have a MgO(001) layer as claimed. See PO Resp. 4–10, 18–48. Petitioner’s reply arguments on Parkin relate to whether there would be a MgO(001) layer in its structure, so we find that Petitioner’s arguments on Parkin in its Reply (Pet. Reply 2–5) and the related evidence are appropriately responsive. slip op. at 17

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

    “We find that there is sufficient evidence in support of Petitioner’s assertion of the rationale to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal them. As discussed supra Section II.D.ii.2, Parkin’s Figure 11 depicts and describes a storage electrode that may be composed of amorphous CoFeB, with the formation of a MgO(001) barrier layer atop it. See Ex. 1062, 22:29–66. Patent Owner argues that Parkin’s benefits are because its CoFeB electrode is amorphous (PO Resp. 51–52), but this is not accurate. In Parkin, the CoFeB amorphous electrode crystallized at the interface layer between the barrier and the electrode. Id. at 19:6–19. Parkin discloses that higher TMRs were attributable to the crystallization of CoFeB. Id. at 18:63–19:22. Parkin also discloses that its completed CoFeB- MgOH(001)-CoFeB device was annealed with resulting high TMRs. Id. at 17:60–18:16. These disclosures provide support that one of skill in the art would have been motivated to replace Bowen’s electrodes with CoFeB and anneal to crystallize them because of the known improvements of TMR. Additionally, Parkin’s disclosures support that the results of the combination would have been predictable. That is, Parkin actually discloses an amorphous CoFeB electrode, formation of a MgO(001) tunnel barrier on the amorphous electrode, and annealing the assembly, with a resulting high TMR. Accordingly, Petitioner has provided reasoning with rationale underpinning for the motivation to combine. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415 (“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 8,405,134 mixed
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,405,134
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01266 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with additional grounds also supporting the challenged claims.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 32) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 33). We denied this motion. See Final Dec. 58–61.” slip op. at 3

  • Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner

    “transmission paths. See Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. And we agree with both parties that the light that is transmitted directly through the plate to the sensor element does not have intervening reflections—such is consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of “directly to.” See PO Resp. 31–32; Pet. Reply 14–15; PO Sur-reply 15. Nothing in claim 48’s language, however, requires that all of the reflected light be transmitted directly to the sensor element, which Patent Owner argues. Ex. 1001, 70:32–35; PO Resp. 31–32; PO Sur-reply 14–16. Rather, we agree with Petitioner that the claim language “merely requires that some light reflected by the object goes ‘directly to’ at least one sensor element once it is transmitted through the viewing plane defining plate.” Pet. Reply 14. We also agree that “none of these dependent claims purport to be exclusive of one another.” Id. at 15. Rather, claims 46–48 simply require some light be transmitted (or propagated) for their particular transmission path, without reciting all light. See Ex. 1001, 70:24–35.” slip op. at 13

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

    “We find Petitioner’s arguments based on Reime alone insufficient. Thus, we find that Petitioner does not show by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 49 is rendered obvious by Reime alone.” slip op. at 52

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesUnpatentableUnpatentable

    “And in view of the above, we find persuasive Dr. Bederson’s testimony that “[c]hoosing a multi-element detector or a single-element detector would have been a simple design choice using commercially available detectors.” Ex. 1002 ¶ 117. Accordingly, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for Reime’s receivers to be implemented using discrete single-element detectors. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). We find unavailing Patent Owner’s argument that “Petitioner relies on expert testimony to gap-fill missing elements regarding Reime’s failure to disclose or suggest the different claim arrangements of detector elements in a ‘detector assembly.’” PO Resp. 78 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 111–119; Ex. 2056 ¶ 171). Rather, in light of Reime’s teachings, coupled with the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ discrete single-element detectors for Reime’s receivers. See Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (finding obviousness can rely on supported expert testimony to supply an element of a claim). We appropriately consider such evidence of the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had as part of our obviousness analysis. See Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Moreover, “AAPA can be important evidence of general background knowledge, and general knowledge can be used to supply a missing claim 1371, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Here, Petitioner relies on the cited AAPA as evidence of one of ordinary skill in the art’s general knowledge at the time of the ’093 patent, and the AAPA is not the basis for this ground. See Pet. 4, 42–43; Pet. Remand 4–5. As Shockwave Med. explains, Federal Circuit “case law has long recognized numerous permissible uses for general background knowledge in an IPR such as, ‘for example, furnishing a motivation to combine, or supplying a missing claim limitation.” 142 F.4th at 1378–79 (quoting Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc., 24 F.4th 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (citing Randall Mfg., 733 F.3d at 1362; Koninklijke, 948 F.3d at 1337–38)).” slip op. at 31

  Patent outcomesUS 9,569,093 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,569,093
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b, Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Mar 13, 2026 · IPR2021-01239 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 17, 18, 21, 22, 26, and 30 unpatentable as obvious over Reime, with claims 17, 18, 21, 22, and 30 also obvious over Reime and Hinckley.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • ExcludeMotion to exclude, deniedDenied

    “In addition, Patent Owner filed a Motion to Exclude certain of Petitioner’s evidence (Paper 28) and Petitioner filed an Opposition (Paper 34). We denied this motion. See Paper 41, 47–50.” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level board ownOther

    “one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’850 patent: one who “would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and . . . years of experience in the research, design, development, and/or testing of touch and/or proximity sensors, human-machine interaction and 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’850 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we apply the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability. 4 US 2003/0034439 A1, published Feb. 20, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Reime”). 5 US 2002/0021278 A1, published Feb. 21, 2002 (Ex. 1011, “Hinckley”). Petitioner lists the combination of Reime and Hinckley as a separate asserted ground for claim 26. We combine these two asserted grounds into one as they rely on the same combination. additional education substituting for experience and vice versa.” Final Dec. 8–9. This definition for one having ordinary skill was not the subject of appeal, and we maintain it for purposes of this Final Written Decision on Remand. Moreover, it is consistent with the ’850 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 ownDecided for petitioner

    “PO Resp. 17–29; Pet. Reply 8–15; PO Sur-reply 6–11. We construed this term in the Final Written Decision. Final Dec. 10–24. In particular, we concluded that (i) “detector assembly” means “two or more detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation,” and (ii) a detector assembly is not required to be physically separate from (i.e., not interspersed with) a pixel array. Id. at 20, 22. The Federal Circuit found the first part of our construction erroneous. Appeal Dec. 7–10. In particular, the Federal Circuit concluded that “[t]he element.” Id. at 8. In addition, to guide the Board’s analysis on remand, the Federal Circuit construed “the terms ‘at an edge’ and ‘at least one edge’ [to] require a detector assembly to be arranged along one or more edges of a viewing plane defining plate.” Id. at 10–11. In other words, the Federal Circuit “clarif[ied] that arranging a detector assembly ‘at,’ ‘along,’ or ‘about’ ‘at least one edge’ or ‘an edge’ does not limit the detector assembly to being arranged entirely on ‘one edge.’” Id. at 12.” slip op. at 9

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

    “the Federal Circuit already has concluded that claim 15 is obvious in view of Reime. Appeal Dec. 9–10. Claim 17 further recites “wherein the detector assembly comprises: a support substrate, and an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1001, 67:15–18. We agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches these further limitations. Pet. 34–35; Pet. Remand 2–4; Pet. Resp. Remand 1–3. First, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime’s receivers 30 and 32 are two detector elements that detect electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light), and Reime’s receivers 30 and 32, collectively, comprise a detector assembly. Final Dec. 27–28 (citations omitted). Moreover, Reime’s two receivers 30 and 32 comprise a detector assembly having multiple detector elements (e.g., two receivers) to teach “an arrangement of detector elements.” Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 73, 86, Figs. 9A–9C; Ex. 2060,7 127:17–18; Pet. 32–33; Pet. Reply 20; Pet. Remand 3. In addition, as we found in the Final Written Decision, Reime teaches that each of receivers 30 and 32 are centered on opposite edges of the plate. 7 Deposition Transcript of Dr. Benjamin Bederson (Apr. 7, 2022). Ex. 1010, Fig. 6A, ¶ 82) (affirming that Reime teaches having one light receiver (e.g., 30 or 32) on each side of a four-sided touch pad). In further support, we agree with Petitioner and find that Reime teaches that receivers 30 and 32 “are mounted in the peripheral area surrounding the LCD 92.” Pet. 32–33; Ex. 1010 ¶ 86; see also id. at Figs. 9A–9C (showing that the receivers are positioned at the edge of the LCD screen); infra annotated Fig. 9E (showing receivers 30 and 32 along edges of the LCD). Accordingly, we find Reime’s detector assembly that comprises receivers 30 and 32 is arranged along two edges (one edge for each receiver) of the LCD, which meets the Federal Circuit’s construction for being arranged at at least one edge. See supra Section III (concluding “at least one edge” means “arranged along one or more edges”) (emphasis added).” slip op. at 12

  Patent outcomesUS 8,624,850 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,624,850
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00124 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 10–14, and 16 are unpatentable as obvious over the Neufeld grounds; the Board found the IPMI and Lawrence grounds insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). In assessing the level of ordinary skill in the art, various factors may be considered, including the “type of problems encountered in the art; prior art solutions to those problems; rapidity with which innovations are made; sophistication of the technology; and educational level of active workers in the field.” In re GPAC, Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962–63 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). “[O]ne or more factors may predominate.” Id. In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’140 patent. Dec. on Inst. 7–8. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or” slip op. at 7

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

    “same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), following the standard articulated in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340, 51,340–41, 51,343 (Oct. 11, 2018). In applying such standard, claim terms generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be 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, 415 F.3d at 1312–13. “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d 1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17). in claim 1 means “said managed network device.” Pet. 9. Patent Owner does not dispute this construction. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction for this term as it appears to be consistent with the Specification’s use of “element” as referring to networked devices, and with the overall claim. See generally Ex. 1002.” slip op. at 8

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

    “First, Petitioner argues that “an out of band access connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the recited function being “connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller for management of said network device.” Id. at 10. Petitioner argues that the function’s corresponding structure is “one or more of the following networks: a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (2:45–57, 3:2–4, 12:37-61), an Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) (2:45–57), a cellular network (6:14–21, 7:60–62, 12:37–61), an Ethernet network (12:37–61), a wireless network, and/or a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) (12:37–61, 15:55–60), where the one or more networks use one or more of the following protocols: [Simple Network Management Protocol (“SNMP”)], TFTP, FTP, DNS, SysLog, Telnet, SSH, HTTP, HTTPs, point to point IP, and/or XML (8:30–38).” Id. Second, Petitioner argues that “virtual management interface connection means” is a means-plus-function term with the following recited with said secure management access controller’; (ii) ‘provides logical separation of management data from user data,’ and (iii) ‘utilizes user interfaces of said managed network element for connecting said one or more network services or remote users with said secure management access controller.’” Id. at 10–11. Petitioner argues that the functions’ corresponding structure is a VPN. Id. at 11 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:22–44, 6:63– 7:5, 12:5–21).” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Lastly, we determine that we do not need to construe any other terms to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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 and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 11

  Patent outcomesUS 7,325,140 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 7,325,140
• Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures, II LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Feb 18, 2026 · IPR2024-00109 · APJ John D Hamann · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable as obvious over grounds involving Neufeld; the Board found the grounds involving IPMI and Huckins insufficient.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “In our Decision on Institution, we adopted the definition Petitioner proposes for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention of the ’016 patent. Dec. on Inst. 8–9. Namely, we found that one of ordinary skill in the art “would have had a Bachelors’ degree in electrical or computer engineering or a comparable field of study, plus approximately two to three years of professional experience in the field of computer and/or network design and security or other relevant industry experience,” and that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, and significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Id. (citing Pet. 6 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 56)). Patent Owner does not address Petitioner’s definition, nor provide its own. See generally PO Resp. Because Petitioner’s definition of the level of skill in the art is consistent with the ’016 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); In re GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579; In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978).” slip op. at 9

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

    “We determine that we do not need to construe any term to resolve the disputes between the parties. See, e.g., 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. the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”).” slip op. at 10

  • Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedDecided for patent owner

    “In addition, we find not credible Dr. Mishra’s deposition testimony that Neufeld teaches only out-of-band communication, and it is not possible for a remote management command to come to remote management controller 116 via network N and through NIC 110. See Ex. 1043,22 43:5– 44:6, 49:9–50:7; PO Sur-reply 4–5. This testimony is inconsistent with Neufeld’s express teachings, which we discuss above. Compare Ex. 1043, 43:5–44:6, 49:9–50:7, with Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 11–12, 15, 34–35, 43, Figs. 1–2.” slip op. at 18

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

    “[O]bviousness concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” See Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC, 805 F.3d 1064, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Polaris Indus., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 882 F.3d 1056, 1068−69 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding that “the Board focused on what a skilled artisan would have been able to do, rather than what a skilled artisan would have been motivated to do at the time of the invention”). Petitioner’s arguments focus on that the modified version of IPMI could have been made, rather than that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings to make the proffered combination. For example, Petitioner argues that the modified IPMI version is “one way to implement a side-band connection.” Pet. 62. This argues that the modified IPMI version could have been made. Petitioner also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the combined modifications because “IPMI’s LAN Controller already has the necessary logic and hardware to send packets to [the] managed server via the PCI bus as shown in unmodified version of Fig. 12-1.” Pet. Reply 23; see also id. at 24 (arguing that “implementing the I2C sideband interface taught by IPMI using a PCI-I2C controller/bridge is a simple and logical solution on the PCI bus”). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner does not explain why this would be a motivation to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” to IPMI’s teachings. E.g., PO Resp. 60; PO Sur-reply 20. And, we find persuasive Dr. Mishra’s testimony that “[r]equiring a LAN controller to offload management data onto the PCI bus only to route it back internally via the I/O Controller Hub introduces unnecessary design complexity, reduces system performance, and consumes additional bandwidth and power, all without technical justification.” Ex. 2007 ¶ 148; see also id. ¶¶ 145–146 (testifying to the modified combination’s operation). We also find unavailing Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s criticisms of the modified version of Figure 12-1 “do not defeat the Petition’s showing of obviousness because ‘[i]t’s not necessary to show that a combination is the best option, only that it be a suitable option.’” Pet. Reply 26 (citing Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799– 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). But Petitioner does not address why the modified version of IPMI is suitable. Nor does Petitioner persuasively counter Dr. Mishra’s testimony as to why one of skill in the art would not have made the proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 24–26; Ex. 2007 ¶¶ 145–148. In addition, in our view, Petitioner’s modification of IPMI to add Huckins’s “PCI-I2C Bus Controller/Bridge” is driven by impermissible hindsight and the desire to locate a distinct, second bus (the PCI bus) as required by the claims. Petitioner’s arguments to this end rely impermissibly on the ’016 patent itself as a roadmap. See Grain Processing Corp. v. Am.-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed. Cir. patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.”’)); Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. The Toro Co., 848 F.3d 1358, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e cannot allow hindsight bias to be the thread that stitches together prior art patches into something that is the claimed invention.”). slip op. at 37

  Patent outcomesUS 8,474,016 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,474,016
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCSome claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 23, 2025 · IPR2024-01030 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–20, 22–31, and 33–37 are unpatentable; claims 21 and 32 were not shown unpatentable, principally because the proposed combinations failed to establish motivation to combine or the required airtight seal.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’483 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

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

    “hermetically sealed” module does not encompass waterproof modules that are not airtight. First, as Petitioner admits, as a general matter, “[s]omething that is hermetically sealed is sealed so as to be airtight.” Pet. 28 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269); PO Sur-reply 16. Petitioner later tries to argue that the specification puts a different spin on this meaning, but still acknowledges that “[o]utside the context of the ’483 patent, a hermetic seal is sometimes equated with an airtight seal.” See Pet. Post-hearing 2–3 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 103; Ex. 1010, 269). Based on our review of the record, the “ordinary meaning” of “hermetically sealed” means “airtight,” and, as noted above, “airtight” is not the same thing as “waterproof.” Second, the claims support Patent Owner’s position by including dependent claims that separately claim a “hermetically sealed” module (claims 13 and 32) and a “waterproof” module (claims 15 and 34), strongly suggesting that the terms have a different scope to avoid rendering some claims redundant. See Ex. 1001, 11: 65–66, 12:3–4, 12:52–53, 12:55–56. Petitioner argues in its Post-hearing brief that claims requiring waterproof modules are “a narrower species” of hermetic seal, but fails to explain how hermetic, airtight, and waterproof seals would not fall within the scope of both claims using its approach. Pet. Post-hearing Reply 2. Petitioner’s earlier argument in its Reply also seems to cut against this position by asserting that the specification “treats hermitically sealing as conventional and equivalent to waterproofing,” with different dependent claims directed to two allegedly “equivalent” terms making little sense. Pet. Reply 14 (emphasis added). The most natural reading of the claim language suggests that “hermetically sealed” means airtight, and does not encompass modules that are waterproof but not airtight. Third, while the specification does not define “hermetically sealed” and uses “waterproof” and “hermetically sealed” in similar contexts, it does not suggest that “hermetically sealed” does not require an airtight seal consistent with its ordinary meaning. See Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18, 10:47–50). Instead, the specification states that hermetic seals prevent water from contacting electronics, which remains consistent with Patent Owner’s position because airtight hermetic seals are also waterproof. See Ex. 1001, 6:47–53, 9:15–18. The specification also states that “[t]he module preferably houses any of the aforementioned electrical components in a substantially water-proof and wear resistant/moisture resistant environment and is preferably hermetically sealed.” Id. at 10:47–50 (emphasis added). This passage supports Patent Owner’s position by suggesting that the preferable “hermetically sealed” module goes beyond mere water resistance. See PO Sur-reply 16–17. slip op. at 16

  • Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable

    “2. Petitioner’s Anticipation Arguments and Evidence Petitioner argues that Howell-596 discloses every limitation of claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18, and points to specific portions of Howell-596 and expert testimony to support its arguments. See Pet. 10–20 (citing Ex. 1002; Ex. 1003). We have reviewed the evidence and arguments of record and find that Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the limitations in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18 are disclosed by Howell-596 for the reasons set forth in the Petition, which we adopt as our own. See id.11 Accordingly, we find that Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Howell-596 anticipates claims 1, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 18.” slip op. at 12

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

    “Based on these undisputed points and the parties’ arguments, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner fails to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated to locate Howell-596’s module housing 1700, which contains its UV detection system 1500, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never squarely addresses the fact that placing Howell-596’s UV detection system behind a user’s ear would negatively impact its performance. Pet. 31–33; Pet. Reply 17–22. As a result, even if we accept Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the various advantages when placing electronics behind a user’s ear, it fails to establish a motivation to combine that requires placing Howell-596’s module housing 1700, and therefore its UV detection system, behind a user’s ear. Petitioner never acknowledges the readily apparent disadvantages of placing a UV detection system behind the ear, where it may not work at all. See Pet. 31–33. Nor does Petitioner argue that, in its combination, adjustments would be made to ensure accurate operation of Howell-596’s UV detection system. See id. Similarly, Petitioner notes that both Howell-596 and Howell-833 disclose UV sensors behind the ear of a user, but those teachings do not establish that placing Howell-596’s module behind the ear would ensure proper operation of its UV detection system housed within that module. See Pet. Reply 17–22. Instead, even though Howell-596 discloses a sensor behind the ear of a user, it maintains the UV detection system in a module toward the front of the temple, away from the ear. See id. at 18–19; PO Surreply 21–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 205 (describing UV detection system 2102), Fig. 21 (showing UV detection system 2102 toward the front of the temple). Moreover, Petitioner’s reliance on the sensor placed behind the ear of the user in Howell-596 lacks weight because that sensor merely indicates that the device “is being worn by a user,” which serves a very different purpose than Howell-596’s UV detection system, which seeks to monitor a user’s exposure to UV radiation, a central purpose of Howell-596’s eyewear. See Ex. 1003 ¶ 205, code (57). Howell-833 also employs a UV sensor behind the ear, but Petitioner does not establish that it operates any differently than the “being worn” sensor in Howell-596, and therefore does not establish that Howell-596’s UV detection system would still work for its intended purposes in Petitioner’s proposed combination. See Pet. Reply 19–20.” slip op. at 29

  Patent outcomesUS 8,708,483 mixed
  Claim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR
  Patents in suitUS 8,708,483
• Luxottica Of America Inc. v. E-Vision Optics, LLCAll claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Dec 11, 2025 · IPR2024-01071 · APJ Richard H Marschall · IPR · Final written decision

  Claims 1–19 are unpatentable as obvious; the Board found each challenged claim unpatentable under at least one asserted § 103 ground.

  RulingsFinal written decision

  • Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner

    “We find that the proposals from the parties substantially overlap, such that it remains unclear whether any substantive difference exists. Notably, neither party argues that the minor differences in the proposals lead to a different outcome on any issues in this proceeding. Based on our review of the proposals, we apply Patent Owner’s proposal because it is consistent with the problems and solutions disclosed in the ’541 patent and prior art of record. See, e.g., GPAC, 57 F.3d at 1579 (approving the determination of the level of ordinary skill in the art by appeal to the references of record). The outcome of the issues addressed in this Decision would not change if we applied Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 9

  • Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededDecided for patent owner

    “Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), we apply the claim construction standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, we give the words of a claim their plain and ordinary meaning as would have been understood by one skilled in the art at the time of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. Id. at 1312–13. Only terms in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See 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)). Here, Petitioner posits that “no claim terms require construction to resolve the obviousness challenges here.” Pet. 12. Patent Owner does not oppose Petitioner’s position or proffer any constructions of its own. See generally PO Resp. We determine that no express construction of any claim element is necessary to resolve the issues in this proceeding.” slip op. at 9

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

    “Based on our review of the record, we find Petitioner’s arguments and evidence as to the motivation to combine Howell-596 and Howell-158 persuasive. Importantly, the references themselves support the combination because Howell-158 expressly teaches the advantages of using an insulating layer with metal frames and incorporates by reference Howell-596 and its embodiments that disclose all but the insulating layer limitations of claim 1. See Pet. 15–21. While Patent Owner correctly notes that the references do not expressly teach the use of the insulating layer in the Howell-596 embodiments, the references do not teach away from that approach and at least implicitly support Petitioner’s proposed combination, which involves using an advantageous design element (an insulating layer) with another embodiment incorporated into the same document. See id.; Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 3 (incorporating Howell-596), 52–53 (disclosing the use of metal frames and the advantages of using an insulating layer with metal frames). Patent Owner does not dispute that the stated advantages of the insulating layer— preventing short circuits and reducing leakage current—would apply to the embodiments of Howell-596 when those designs incorporate a metal frame. See PO Resp. 18 (arguing that the advantages of the insulating layer only apply if metal frames are implemented in Howell-596’s system). In short, the references themselves amply support Petitioner’s motivation to combine arguments and the expert testimony Petitioner relies on in support of those arguments. See Pet. 21–24; Pet. Reply 2–10; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 63–69.” slip op. at 19

  • Obviousness (§103) › KSR rationalesMotivation foundUnpatentable

    “POSITA would have found it obvious, through routine optimization, to select a housing module with the claimed thickness of less than or equal to 0.7 mm. See Aller, 220 F.2d at 456; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable . . . is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); see also Power- Kennedy Contracting Corp. v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co., 282 U.S. 175, 184–85 (1930) (“[O]bviously a mere change in proportion would involve no more than mechanical skill and would not amount to invention.”). Several reasons support Petitioner’s arguments, which we address in turn.” slip op. at 33

  Patent outcomesUS 8,905,541 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 8,905,541
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2b Inc.All claims unpatentable
  PTAB · Oct 27, 2025 · IPR2021-01257 · APJ Sheila F Mcshane · IPR · Remand

  On remand, the Board held claims 1, 2, 6–8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21–23, 26, and 30 unpatentable as obvious over the stated Newton and Reime grounds.

  RulingsRemand decision

  • RemandOther

    “On February 12, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion vacating and remanding our Final Written Decision based on the determination of the construction of the impingement term recited in the ’170 patent. Appeal Dec. 9. More specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the Board’s construction was too limited. Id. at 8–9. The Federal Circuit found that As properly construed, in the context of the challenged claims, ‘impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot’ must include ‘reflected, projected, and interrupted or blocked radiation.’ In other words, when a finger or non-light-emitting stylus interrupts or blocks a beam of electromagnetic radiation, and does so over a certain spot on the surface of a device, the claim limitation is satisfied. Contrary to the Board’s construction, as articulated by Power2B on appeal, the ‘electromagnetic radiation spot on . . . [the] interactive surface element’ does not ‘require[that] radiation imping[e] on the surface element’ and, hence, does not exclude interrupting or blocking radiation. Appeal Dec. 9 (citations omitted).” slip op. at 3

  • Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “better definition for purposes of this proceeding, except we again decline to adopt “at least” because that language is vague and open-ended. With respect to the educational qualifications, Petitioner’s proposed qualifications are that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field. Pet. 8 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 41) (emphasis added). The claims are directed to an interactive assembly comprising at least one input sensor to provide an output indicative of an impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot. Individuals with bachelor’s degrees in physics would be knowledgeable in researching, designing, or developing such assemblies and would be able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art. Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed qualifications are overly narrow in not including individuals with bachelor’s degrees in physics. With respect to work experience, a person having two years of experience would be able to comprehend and evaluate the teachings of the prior art, consistent with Petitioner’s proposal.” slip op. at 10

  • Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for petitioner

    “impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot” includes “reflected, projected, and interrupted or blocked radiation” and “when a finger or nonlight-emitting stylus interrupts or blocks a beam of electromagnetic radiation, and does so over a certain spot on the surface of a device, the claim limitation is satisfied.” Appeal Dec. 9. Under this construction, we determine that Petitioner has demonstrated that Newton teaches this claim limitation. More specifically, Newton discloses that a user touch interrupts beams of electromagnetic radiation over certain spots over a surface, which provides an output. See Ex. 1012 ¶¶ 13, 25; see also Ex. 1002 ¶ 72. slip op. at 18

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

    “We agree with Petitioner that the claims do not require a detector assembly to be physically separate from the interactive surface element. The language of the claims does not require this, nor is there any disclosure in the ’170 patent specification that indicates that separation of these elements is required. Patent Owner refers to certain embodiments that have separate structures, but we decline to import this as a requirement to the claim term. We also agree with Petitioner that the ’170 patent broadly views what it means to be “at an edge,” and that can include being behind, about, or along an edge within its scope. See Ex. 1001, 55:63–56:2.” slip op. at 24

  Patent outcomesUS 9,317,170 unpatentable
  Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · Graham
  Patents in suitUS 9,317,170

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.