- Røde Microphones, LLC / Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd. v. Zaxcom, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 30, 2025 · IPR2025-00557 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution because Petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims were unpatentable over the asserted obviousness combinations.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the “master timecode generator” produces a signal that “controls” another timecode generator. See Prelim. Resp. 19 (citing a dictionary definition of “master” as “[one] that has control over another or others,” Ex. 2019, 3). We see no basis, however, to limit the claim term to a particular type of control. Patent Owner points to Figure 6 of the ’444 patent where “the master timecode generator creates master timecodes that are used to control the speed of the local timecode generator to ensure the two timecode generators are synchronized.” See Prelim. Resp. 19‒20 (citing Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 9‒16, Fig. 6). But Figure 6 merely depicts an exemplary “process for recording audio and for replaying and re-recording segments of missed audio in accordance with one embodiment of the present invention.” See Ex. 1001, col. 3, ll. 15‒17. Further, the Specification describes the exemplary embodiment of Figure 6 as a master unit providing master timecodes to a local audio device, which “synchronizes (e.g., jam syncs) its respective on board local timecode generator with the master timecodes,” but does not specify exactly how the master unit exercises control. Id. at col. 17, ll. 9‒17. Thus, we do not include any particular control mechanism (e.g., changing the speed of the local timecode generator) in our interpretation at this time. Based on the record presented, we interpret “master timecode generator” as “a producer of a master time reference signal that controls at least one other timecode generator” and “master timecode” as “a time reference signal used to synchronize at least one device.”” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not sufficiently shown that Strub teaches or suggests limitation 1[A]. Petitioner relies on Strub’s disclosure of a “master” recording unit as the claimed “remote receiver.” Pet. 34 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39). The cited portion of Strub is reproduced below: Data other than recording data can also be exchanged between recording units. For example, it may be desirable to coordinate the recordings obtained by recording units so that frames of visual recording data obtained by different recording units are temporally synchronized (e.g., so that a frame begins at the same time for each recording unit). This can be done by transmitting a synchronization pulse from a “master” recording unit to each of the other recording units (“slave” recording units). (Synchronizing analog visual data acquisition devices in this way is referred to as “genlocking.”) Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒39. As argued by Patent Owner (see Prelim. Resp. 36), the cited procedure involves synchronizing frames of visual recording data, not audio recording data. Petitioner has not disputed Patent Owner’s assertions that the described “genlocking” technique is a video synchronization technique that does not apply to or affect the synchronization of system clocks or audio timestamps and has no bearing on audio synchronization. Nor does Petitioner explain in the Petition or the Preliminary Reply how or why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have applied this teaching to audio data recorded by an audio device. Petitioner cites this visual recording data synchronization passage as a solution to a problem that Strub identifies in clocks not being adequately synchronized to enable use of time-stamps associated with recordings to be used to synchronize the recordings. See Prelim. Reply 1‒2 (citing Ex. 1003, col. 38, ll. 29‒37, col. 79, l. 63‒col. 80, l. 2). However, immediately following the cited portion that identifies this problem, Strub further explains that “[i]f recording units according to the invention each include a GPS receiver, such mis-synchronization will only exist to an appreciable degree if one or more recording units are shielded from a GPS transmitter system for an extended period of time, e.g., several hours.” Ex. 1003, col. 80, ll. 2–27. Thus, Strub suggests that the solution to this problem is for the recording units to receive their timecodes not from a master recording unit, as argued by Petitioner, but from a GPS satellite.4 Petitioner does not address this teaching.” slip op. at 22
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“We agree with Patent Owner that the Petition does not rely on Woo as teaching or suggesting limitation 1[A]; Petitioner relies solely on the teachings of Strub. See Pet. 33–35 (arguing that “Strub teaches this element”). Petitioner references Strub’s teachings as being “consistent with and reinforced by the Woo reference” in the Preliminary Reply (Prelim. Reply 2), but this is not sufficient to rely on Woo, alone or in combination with Strub, as teaching this limitation. We also agree that the Lectrosonics IPRs’ findings regarding Woo teaching the “master timecode generator” limitation recited in those challenged claims are inapplicable here, where claim 1 recites additional limitations not present in those challenged claims. Compare Ex. 1001, col. 43, ll. 26‒27 (claim 1 of the ’444 patent: “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data”) with Ex. 1028, col. 23, ll. 20‒21 (claim 1 of the ’814 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”) and Ex. 1030, col. 23, ll. 38‒39 (claim 1 of the ’902 patent: “at least one master timecode generator for generating a plurality of master timecodes”). Based on the record before us, Petitioner has not shown sufficiently that Strub teaches or suggests “a remote receiver, the remote receiver configured to create at least one master timecode and to receive audio data,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub and Woo.” slip op. at 26
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,051,444 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Aug 11, 2025 · IPR2024-00557 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–8, 11, 12, and 15–21 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rogers and obvious over Rogers.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill appear to be substantially the same, are both supported by testimonial evidence, and appear to be consistent with the asserted prior art and the types of problems and solutions addressed in the ’067 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1:7–53. Although Patent Owner’s proposed level is more specific about the nature of the practical or industry experience, neither party has argued that the differences between the parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill would affect the outcome. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Specification disavowal / 'present invention' languageDisclaimer not foundDecided for petitioner
“inside” it, the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s position. First, the plain language of independent claim 1 states that the proxy object “compris[es]” the one or more haptic output devices. Ex. 1001, 10:42–43. This is broader than the “within” language of the non-entered amendment. See Ex. 1002, 258. Not only does the evidence fail to show clear disclaimer (see United States v. Telectronics, Inc., 857 F.2d 778, 782–83 (Fed. Cir. 1988)), the adoption of broader “comprising” language shows an intent for the claims not to be limited to systems in which the proxy object contains haptic output devices “inside” it. We also do not agree with Patent Owner that the applicant’s attempts during prosecution to distinguish Gonzales are a clear disclaimer of claim scope. The applicant argued that Gonzales’s AR glove, which contained haptic output actuators in it (see, e.g., Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 80–82, Fig. 3B), was not a “proxy object” as recited in the claims because “the virtual objects and/or visible alterations to the vehicle [the user is sitting in while wearing the 6 Once again, Patent Owner mistakenly references Exhibit 2001. glove] are not overlaid on the AR glove . . . [a]nd the physical portions of the vehicle were visible alterations are overlaid do not include any feedback devices.” Ex. 1002, 287. Thus, the issue raised during prosecution was not whether the AR glove comprised haptic output devices—which it clearly did even under Patent Owner’s proposed construction—but whether the AR glove had modified visual effects displayed on it as per limitation 1D3. slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“For the above reasons, we decline to adopt Patent Owner’s proposed construction of “a proxy object comprising one or more haptic output devices” as meaning “a physical object that acts as a proxy for a virtual object and that itself contains inside a haptic output device, e.g., an actuator.” PO Resp. 10. Instead, we conclude that no explicit construction is necessary beyond the ordinary and customary meaning.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Alternatively, we find persuasive Petitioner’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had used both the camera data and the inertial sensor data in determining the “reloading” haptic effect. Pet. 77; Pet. Reply 19–22; Ex. 1003 ¶ 318; Tr. 31:3–10. This is evident in light of Rogers’s disclosures (1) that both sets of data are used to determine the pointing direction of interface object 104 in at least some contexts (Ex. 1010 ¶ 106); and (2) that the “reloading” haptic effect is based on the pointing direction (Ex. 1010 ¶ 105). See Intel Corp., v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[If] there’s a known technique to address a known problem using prior art elements according to their established functions, then there is a motivation to combine.” (internal quotation omitted)). Thus, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Rogers discloses limitation 1D2, and alternatively that limitation 1D2 would have been obvious based on Rogers’s disclosures.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 10,665,067 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,665,067 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 31, 2025 · IPR2024-00508 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18, 21–24, and 26–29 are unpatentable as anticipated by Rosenberg; the Board did not reach the alternative Brock grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry experience or graduate-level academic experience with human-computer interaction.” Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 40–45). This level of skill appears reasonable in view of the disclosures in the ’546 patent and asserted prior art. We adopt Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill for this Decision.” slip op. at 5
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Petitioner argues that we need not construe any claim terms explicitly because “the Petition’s prior art discloses each element of the challenged claims under any plausible construction.” Pet. 8. We agree with Petitioner that, for this Decision, we do not need to construe any of the terms explicitly. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))). To the extent that we discuss specific claim language, we do so below in the context of the prior art. See, e.g., infra Section III.C.2(e).” slip op. at 6
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“To show anticipation under § 102, a petitioner must locate every element in a claim, arranged as recited in the claim, in a single prior art reference. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The limitations may be present in the reference “either explicitly or inherently.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In making this determination, we consider the reference “together with the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.” In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing In re Samour, 571 F.2d 559, 562 (CCPA 1978)).” slip op. at 6
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“A claim is unpatentable for obviousness under § 103(a) if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). When a ground in a petition is based on a combination of references, we consider “whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” Id. at 418 (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). We base our obviousness inquiry on factual considerations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) any objective indicia of obviousness or non-obviousness that may be in evidence.4 See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.” slip op. at 7
Patent outcomesUS 9,116,546 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,116,546 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 28, 2025 · IPR2024-00556 · APJ Michael R Zecher · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–18 are unpatentable as obvious over Astala and Shahoian; claims 1, 6–9, 13, 14, and 18 also over Keely and Kolmykov-Zotov; claims 2–5, 10–12, and 15–17 also over those references with Shahoian.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Plain and ordinary meaningOther
“As we explained in the Institution Decision, we have reviewed the Board’s prior decision in IPR2016-01777 and we disagree with Valve that the previous Board panel actually construed the “determining a press” limitation. See Dec. on Inst. 9–10. The previous Board panel was merely making the point that the three conditions in the “determining a press” limitation had to be related in some way, and pointed to Figure 3 of the ’507 patent as an example of that relationship. IPR2016-01777, Paper 7 at 14–15 (Ex. 1023) (explaining that the interval in Figure 3 is “an integral part of the ‘determining a press imitation’”). The prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 did not contain a claim construction because, in its Decision on Rehearing, the previous Board panel stated that it “did not expressly construe the ‘determining a press limitation’ or interpret[] the limitation to require the first two conditions recited in the limitation to be maintained for the duration of the first interval.” Apple Inc. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2016- 01777, Paper 9 at 3 (PTAB Apr. 27, 2017) (Decision Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing). Thus, the prior Board decision outcome was not reliant on any particular claim interpretation or characterization of Figure 3; instead, it faulted the petitioner in that case for not considering the three conditions as a whole in the manner required by the claims. Id. at 3–4 (explaining that the petitioner needed to show the “‘first interval has elapsed’ condition as a part of the ‘determining a press limitation’” (emphasis added)). Notwithstanding, and for the sake of clarity, to the extent the prior Board decision in IPR2016-01777 characterized Figure 3 of the ’507 patent to require the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during the entire interval, we agree with Valve that such a reading of Figure 3 is incorrect. As Valve points out in its analysis, with which we agree, the flowchart in Figure 3 allows for both the pressure and change in pressure conditions to be met during some but not all of the entire time interval in certain circumstances. Pet. 12–14.3 In summary, we agree with Valve that the three conditions of the “determining a press” limitation are independent insofar as satisfaction of one condition is not predicated on the satisfaction of another condition. In our view, however, that point is merely reciting what the claim already requires—namely, that “determining a press” is defined as the satisfaction of the three conditions. Nothing more is required. Thus, we do not see the need to construe independent claim 1 beyond its plain language.” slip op. at 8
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Relying on the testimony of Mr. Ward, Valve argues the following: [a] person of ordinary skill in the art . . . on November 26, 2003 would have had a Bachelors’ degree in computer science, electrical engineering, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies. Pet. 7 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 47–51). Accordingly, we maintain our preliminary determination regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. See Dec. on Inst. 8. That is, we adopt Valve’s proposed assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art because (1) it is consistent with the ’507 patent and the asserted prior art; and (2) it is supported by the testimony of Mr. Ward. We apply this assessment of the level of ordinary skill in the art in our obviousness evaluations below.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Turning to rationale to combine, Valve contends that, because Shahoian recognizes that “[o]ne problem with existing touchpads is that there is no haptic feedback provided to the user” to “assist and inform the user” when interpreting gestures, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Astala’s input touch screen 70 was ready for the improvement that Shahoian provides—namely, “haptic feedback associated with touchpad/touchscreen input gestures.” Pet. 17–18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 6) (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 158–160). Valve argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating Shahoian’s haptic feedback into Astala’s input touch screen 70 would have introduced certain benefits taught by Shahoian, including, but not limited to, using haptic feedback to inform users of touchpad gestures by “assist[ing] users in noisy environments . . . where sound may not be easily heard by the user.” Id. at 18 (quoting Ex. 1006 ¶ 178) (citing Ex. 1006 ¶¶ 6, 187, 188, 193; Ex. 1003 ¶ 161). Valve also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Shahoian’s pressure-sensing components in Astala’s input touch screen 70 because, among other reasons, using actual pressure sensors in a touchpad would have provided more accurate determinations of user input. Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 41; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 164–166). Valve asserts there was a reasonable expectation of success in making the proposed combination because it involves “us[ing] Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors for their intended use.” Pet. 19–20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 180, 181). In addition, Valve asserts that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected Shahoian’s haptic feedback and pressure sensors to succeed in Astala because “Shahoian demonstrates that algorithms for haptic feedback were known and predictable.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶ 182). In summary, upon reviewing Valve’s unrebutted arguments and evidence explaining how the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian account for all the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 14, we agree with and adopt Valve’s analysis. See Pet. 17–31, 38–41. Accordingly, Valve has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the subject matter of these independent claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Astala and Shahoian.” slip op. at 19
Patent outcomesUS 8,749,507 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,749,507 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00232 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 17–19, 21–23, 33, 34, 59, 60, and 66 on all asserted grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 17 is obvious over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Decided for petitioner
“final written decision in this proceeding would be in June 2026. There is no trial date set in the district court case. See Ex. 1031, 3. Therefore, we find that factor 2 weighs against exercising discretion to deny institution.” slip op. at 9
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › §325(d) same art / argumentsDecided for petitioner
“preliminary responses, decisions on institution,3 and various exhibits filed in the Lectrosonics IPRs. See Prelim. Resp. 21; Ex. 2027, 10–16. The examiner subsequently signed the IDS with the footnote “ALL REFERENCES CONSIDERED EXCEPT WHERE LINED THROUGH.” Ex. 2028, 6–12. Further, the petitioner in IPR2018-01130, for example, asserted that the challenged claims were unpatentable over various combinations of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner, and the petition, preliminary response, and decision on institution from that proceeding were provided to the examiner. See Ex. 1018, 5–6 (listing the asserted grounds); Ex. 1021, 7–8 (same); Ex. 2027, 14–15. Accordingly, the same art previously was presented to the Office.” slip op. at 15
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 17–19, 21–23, 33, 34, 59, 60, and 66 of the ’207 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“the Board applied the BRI standard to the claims challenged in the Lectrosonics IPRs, so no claim interpretation was ever rendered under the Phillips standard and “issues regarding obviousness, which rely on such claim constructions, have also not been litigated.” Prelim. Resp. 22–24 (citing SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Deca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Patent Owner argues that “[w]here a first IPR is decided under the BRI standard, and a second IPR concerning the same patent is to be decided under the Phillips standard, ‘collateral estoppel . . . is not appropriate.’” Id. at 23 (citing Ebates Performance Mktg., Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., IPR2022-00646, Paper 56 at 10 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2023)). We agree with Patent Owner based on the current record. Although the Lectrosonics IPRs involved patents from the same family as the ’207 patent, which recite many similar claim limitations, the Lectrosonics IPRs were all decided using the BRI standard, not the Phillips standard. Thus, no claim interpretation has been made using the standard that will be applied in this case, and the asserted prior art has not been applied to claims interpreted according to the standard in this case. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that collateral estoppel applies to any of the disputed issues in this proceeding. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, 122 F.4th 911, 918–919 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“‘Because the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district courts apply a different standard of claim construction as explored in Phillips,’ a party is not collaterally estopped in district court proceedings by the Board’s constructions during IPR.”); SkyHawke, 828 F.3d at 1376. Regardless, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground as to claim 17 based on the preliminary claim interpretations applied herein. See supra Section II.E.” slip op. at 36
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,276,207 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00231 · APJ Matthew J Mcneill · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, and 16–20 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is obvious over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(b) time barNot reached
“Pursuant to our authorization provided by email (Ex. 3003), Patent Owner filed a motion to terminate on the basis that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Papers 15 (confidential), 16 (public redacted). Petitioner filed its response on June 5, 2025. Paper 20. The parties’ briefing did not permit sufficient time to decide the motion prior to the three-month statutory deadline for determining whether to institute an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). We express no opinion at this time on Patent Owner’s motion to terminate, which will be decided in due course.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–6, 9, 10, 13, and 16‒20 of the ’902 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted with respect to those claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › §315(e) estoppelEstoppel does not applyDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner based on the current record. Although the Lectrosonics IPRs involved the ’902 patent and other patents from the same family as the ’902 patent, which recite many similar claim limitations, the Lectrosonics IPRs were all decided using the BRI standard, not the Phillips standard. Thus, no claim interpretation has been made using the standard that will be applied in this case, and the asserted prior art has not been applied to claims interpreted according to the standard in this case. Accordingly, on this record, we are not persuaded that collateral estoppel applies to any of the disputed issues in this proceeding. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC, 122 F.4th 911, 918–919 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (“‘Because the Board applies the broadest reasonable construction of the claims while the district courts apply a different standard of claim construction as explored in Phillips,’ a party is not collaterally estopped in district court proceedings by the Board’s constructions during IPR.”); SkyHawke, 828 F.3d at 1376. Regardless, we determine that Petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its asserted ground as to claim 1 based on the preliminary claim interpretations applied herein. See infra Section II.E.5.h.” slip op. at 29
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,929,902 - PTAB · Jun 16, 2025 · IPR2025-00230 · APJ Justin T Arbes · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1–4, 7–9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22–27 on all asserted grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that claim 1 is unpatentable over Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Discretionary denial › Fintiv (parallel litigation)Denied
“Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019), 58 & n.2, available at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated. We consider the following factors to assess “whether efficiency, fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”: 1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; 2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final written decision; 3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties; 4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel proceeding; 5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same party; and 6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion, including the merits. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5–6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In evaluating these factors, we take “a holistic view of whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or instituting review.” Id. at 6.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a) (“The Board institutes the trial on behalf of the Director.”). For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–4, 7‒9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and 22‒27 of the ’443 patent on all grounds of unpatentability asserted with respect to those claims in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“We conclude that interpretation of the term “wearable” is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. Patent Owner argues that the ’443 patent describes wearability of local audio devices and requires the local audio device to include an audio input device, such as a microphone, that is worn by the performer and connects to the performer’s local audio device to capture the performer’s isolated audio track. Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1001, code (57), col. 7, l. 65‒col. 8, l. 4, col. 8, ll. 59‒62, col. 21, ll. 60‒61). Patent Owner further argues that the prosecution history of the ’443 patent “clarifies that ‘wearable’ requires the audio device to be ‘suitable to be worn by the performer’ and excludes devices that are merely portable (e.g., able to be carried in a backpack).” Prelim. Resp. 24. Patent Owner argues that the Notice of Allowance for the ’443 patent distinguishes 5 In the district court case, Petitioner argued that “wearable” means “suitable and in a condition to be worn” and Patent Owner argued that the term means “[s]uitable to be worn by a performer.” See Ex. 2006, 13–14. between “portable” and “wearable” where the prior art of record taught a portable device that could be carried in a backpack, which the Examiner found did not teach a “wearable” limitation of the claims at issue. Id. at 25 (citing Ex. 2017). We agree with Patent Owner’s analysis to the extent it specifies that the audio device is “suitable to be worn,” but do not include “performer” in the interpretation, as claim 1 recites an audio device wearable by a “creator of said locally generated audio.” See Prelim. Resp. 24‒25. Based on the current record, we interpret “wearable” as “suitable and in a condition to be worn.”” slip op. at 18
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“We conclude that no express interpretation of “locally generated audio” is necessary to determine whether to institute an inter partes review because, even if Patent Owner’s interpretation is adopted, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Strub teaches “locally generated audio.” See infra Section II.E.5.c; Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Because we need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy,’ we need not construe [a particular claim limitation] where the construction is not ‘material to the . . . dispute.’” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)). The parties, however, are encouraged to address interpretation of the phrase during trial.” slip op. at 20
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,711,443 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00477 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–7 are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over Komata; the Board did not reach the Tsuji or Rosenberg grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner contends that a POSITA would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or computer science (or an equivalent degree), and two years of practical or industry experience in the field of human computer interaction (HCI), including implementation of computer-based systems and software for providing haptic feedback effects to a user. . . . Also, a person could have qualified as a [POSITA] with more formal education and less practical or industry experience, or vice versa. PO Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2008 ¶ 17). Although these level of skill definitions are not the same, the differences are minor, and Patent Owner does not argue that its level of skill definition is dispositive. To the contrary, Patent Owner asserts that “[i]n any event, the challenged claims of the ’260 Patent are patentable under either . . . definition.” Id. at 18. We apply Petitioner’s level of skill but would have reached the same result had we applied Patent Owner’s.” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“As we explained in our Institution Decision, we disagreed then, and still disagree, “that the second pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected (or that the third pressure must be detected after the first pressure is detected) simply because the second pressure is greater than the first pressure (and the third pressure is greater than the second pressure).” Dec. 27. As we explained there, “[t]he claimed relative magnitudes of the first, second, and third pressures do not define any temporal relationships regarding the detection of the pressures.” Id. We agree with Petitioner that claim 1 recites quantitative relationships for the pressures, not temporal relationships. Reply 4. For example, claim 1 requires “the second pressure greater than the first pressure” but says nothing about when the second pressure must be greater than the first pressure. A key misconception undergirding Patent Owner’s argument is its statement that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” PO Resp. 27 (emphasis added). The claim does not require detecting that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure. Limitation [1c] simply says, “detect a second pressure on the first input device, the second pressure greater than the first pressure.” In other words, all the detection that this limitation requires is detecting a second pressure. The claim then observes that the second pressure is greater than the first pressure but does not require detecting this. Limitation [1e] similarly detects pressure but not the comparison: “detect a third pressure on the first input device, the third pressure greater than the second pressure.” Thus, it does not follow that “a ‘first pressure’ must first exist before the invention can detect that the ‘second pressure’ is greater.” See id. Accordingly, we determine that Patent Owner’s analysis of the claim language is unpersuasive.” slip op. at 10
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“Our decision here does not depend on the meaning of this term. Patent Owner only argues the phrase “tactile sensation” for Petitioner’s challenge over Rosenberg, which we do not reach because Petitioner’s challenge over Komata is dispositive. See PO Resp. 63–66. Accordingly, we do not construe this term.” slip op. at 13
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Patent Owner does not dispute that Komata discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Instead, Patent Owner disputes that Komata discloses the order of all the steps of claim 1, based on its construction requiring the steps to be performed in order. PO Resp. 50–54; Reply 17 (observing that Patent Owner “does not dispute that Ground 1 demonstrates how Komata anticipates or renders obvious claims 1–7 if [Patent Owner’s] ordered-steps argument is rejected”); Sur-reply 12–14 (not disputing the Reply’s observation). As Patent Owner’s argument relies on a claim construction we have not adopted, Patent Owner fails to undermine Petitioner’s persuasive showing.7 To the extent, as we note above, that the claims may require a partial ordering (i.e., limitation [1a] preceding limitation [1b] and limitation [1c] preceding limitation [1d], see supra Section I.A.1.a), Petitioner has persuasively shown that Komata discloses such ordering. a. Summary as to Claim 1 For the above reasons, Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 1 is anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata. 3. Dependent Claims 2–7 Petitioner also contends that claims 2–7 would have been obvious over Komata. Pet. 28–35. Patent Owner does not dispute these dependent claims. Petitioner provides detailed explanations indicating where Komata teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 2–7, supported by Mr. Ward’s testimony. Id. We determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 2–7 are anticipated by and would have been obvious over Komata.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,336,260 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,336,260 - Valve Corporation v. Immersion CorporationAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 12, 2025 · IPR2024-00478 · APJ Scott Raevsky · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–19 are unpatentable because Petitioner proved that Rosenberg I anticipates them.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer science, or a related field, plus at least two years of industry or graduate level experience with software engineering, haptics programming, and/or human-computer interaction, including experience with user-interfaces and applications involving touchscreens, touchpads, and related technologies.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededNot reached
“feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” PO Resp. 28; Sur-reply 3. Petitioner “does not explicitly disagree” that a virtual detent is “vibrotactile feedback that simulates a mechanical detent.” Reply 2. Petitioner asserts that “[i]f there is a dispute, it is whether Rosenberg I’s vibrotactile feedback ‘simulates a mechanical detent’ because [Patent Owner] says such simulation requires a sense of mechanical resistance and Rosenberg I allegedly lacks such simulated resistance.” Id. (citing PO Resp. 58–59).” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“To the extent Patent Owner urges us to require virtual detents to vary on a system or application basis, we do not find this interpretation required by the claims or specification either. Although the claims refer to “a plurality of systems,” they do not recite different detent profiles for each of those systems. Claim 1, for example, recites “receiving a detent profile associated with one of the systems.” The other claims are similar. Patent Owner’s reliance on non-limiting specification language is also unavailing. E.g., Ex. 1001, 8:38–46 (“can” and “may”), 4:30–44 (“embodiment” and “may”).” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“supports its proposed construction. See PO Resp. 32. Patent Owner argues that claim 15 recites a “system comprising” “an input device configured to control one of a plurality of systems,” and hence “the recited plurality of systems are subsystems in addition to the containing system.” Id. We question how this point supports Patent Owner’s proposal because this does not address why each system must “provide[] context for virtual detents.” But regardless, we find it unpersuasive because claim 15’s preamble is not limiting (merely reciting “A system comprising”). See Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[P]reamble language that merely states the purpose or intended use of an invention is generally not treated as limiting the scope of the claim.”); see also Tr. 80:4– 8 (Patent Owner conceding that the preamble is non-limiting). Nor is there any explicit language in claim 15 that would exclude any particular system, such as the system recited in the preamble, from the recited “plurality of systems.”” slip op. at 9
Patent outcomesUS 9,430,042 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipationPatents in suitUS 9,430,042 - Highlevel, Inc. v. Etison LLC D/B/A ClickfunnelsInstitution deniedPTAB · Jun 2, 2025 · IPR2025-00235 · APJ Jason M Repko · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of the IPR challenging claims 1–20 because the district court had already found the claims invalid under § 101.
RulingsInstitution decision- Other 314aInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.” Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating Procedure 2 (Revision 11).1 We see no reason to deviate from the informative decision here. The relevant facts in this case are indistinguishable from those at issue in Hulu. In that case, “Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims challenged in [that] proceeding are invalid as reciting ineligible subject matter under § 101,” and “[t]he district court agreed with Petitioner and issued a decision” slip op. at 5
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“Because the District Court already found the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the parallel litigation, we deny institution of inter partes review. See id. III. ORDER It is ORDERED that the Petition is denied, and no trial is instituted.” slip op. at 6
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 11,361,047
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.